Premier confirms ex-ministers' legal fees are from fighting Integrity Commission

Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff has confirmed in parliament that the half a million dollars in taxpayer-funded legal fees racked up by former ministers Madeleine Ogilvie and Jane Howlett are due to them fighting the Integrity Commission.

Ms Ogilvie and Ms Howlett recently resigned to the backbench over accusations they misled parliament.

The pair have both had their legal bills footed by the taxpayer in recent years for unknown cases.

Ms Howlett's bill has now reached $405,000, while Ms Ogilvie's remains at $120,000.

Neither have been able to explain what they are for, but many people have speculated that they relate to Integrity Commission investigations.

In parliament today, after years of pursuit by opposition parties, Mr Rockliff confirmed that was true.

Asked by Labor integrity spokesperson Ella Haddad if the legal fees accrued by the two former ministers and the Integrity Commission's own $317,000 bill were about "secret legal disputes" between the former ministers and the commission, the premier replied "yes".

Ms Haddad: During budget estimates the Integrity Commission confirmed that someone initiating court action in the Supreme Court can prevent Integrity Commission reports from being released.

The question taken on notice from estimates has revealed that the Integrity Commission has spent $317,545.19 on its on legal costs for investigations since the 2022-23 financial year.

Former Minister Howlett has now racked up $405,000 in secret taxpayer-funded legal fees and former Minister Ogilvie has spent over $120,000, that we know of.

Premier, are Tasmanians paying almost a million dollars to cover both sides of secret legal disputes between your former ministers and the Integrity Commission?

Mr Rockliff: There is a process underway and at face value, yes, the answer to your question is yes.

The premier also said he did not expect Ms Howlett's bill would increase any further, but the government would actively disclose if it did.

"My understanding is there will be no further costs incurred, but we've committed to routine disclosures, should there be any further costs, which can I say is very unlikely as I understand it, then we'll be full and open and transparent," he said.

The government says the former ministers will provide the full details about the cases when they are legally able to.

Rough times for government

The premier has had a tough few weeks with the minority parliament forcing two of his ministers to the backbench.

First, Ms Ogilvie resigned over accusations she had misled parliament over whether she was involved in Supreme Court action.

That resulted in lots of questions about what Mr Rockliff knew and when.

His apology and admission that he should have done better have done little to quell the rage of Labor, the Greens and the crossbench.

After Ms Ogilvie left, attention turned to Ms Howlett, who had dodged questions about whether she was involved in Supreme Court action or what her large legal bill was for.

The final straw was conflicting evidence about whether her office knew about a breach of caretaker mode.

While his fallen ministers were absent from parliament, the premier took question after question about the issues.

Ms Haddad: Premier, has former minister Howlett commenced Supreme Court proceedings for which taxpayers are paying the bill?

Mr Rockliff: I'm not in a position to talk about legal matters of other members in the parliament.

His performance was not enough to avoid a debate on a censure motion.

'Repeated failure' to answer questions

In arguing why there should be a censure motion debate, Greens leader Rosalie Woodruff said they had given the premier lots of chances.

"We have made every effort … to elicit satisfactory responses from the premier about his actions and failures … and omissions over the last six months, but particularly over the last month that have led to the resignation of two ministers," Dr Woodruff said.

"We believe … that we've given the premier … every opportunity outside of parliament and in parliament to answer these questions.

"It's his repeated failure to do so that brings us to this point."

A censure motion is a symbolic motion that carries no actual penalty.

Mr Rockliff started his response by saying: "The matter is serious and what this house chooses to do about it is equally serious as well."

"Today is not just about judging a set of events, it's about what standards we apply, it's what precedents we set and what kind of parliament Tasmanians expect us to be,"

he said.

Mr Rockliff said the matters around Ms Ogilvie go directly to "ministerial standards and parliamentary accountability".

"They should be examined, they should be questioned and they should be taken seriously," he told parliament

"I have accepted that in this instance the standard expected of me was not met."

The premier also defended his performance in estimates where he repeatedly refused to answer questions about MPs' legal matters on the basis of legal complexity.

"When I said I could not comment on certain matters, it was because I formed the view that answering those questions in detail at that time risked breaching legal constraints," he said.

"That judgement was not made lightly. It was not made for convenience."

Mr Rockliff said the threshold of a censure motion "must remain high", warning parliament should be wary of setting a precedent.

"A censure is not a signalling device, it's not a tool for political pressure, it's something to be deployed simply because the numbers are there," Mr Rockliff said.

"If this house chooses to apply it where there has been acknowledged error, apology, consequence and reform, but no deliberate wrongdoing then we fundamentally change what censure means in this parliament."

Latest cabinet reshuffle announced

Before parliament sat on Wednesday morning, Mr Rockliff announced a reshuffle of his cabinet, following Ms Howlett's resignation from the frontbench on Tuesday.

Roger Jaensch returns to the frontbench and will take on the portfolios for Tourism, Hospitality and Events; Minister for Racing; Minister for Community and Multicultural Affairs; and Minister for the Arts.

Current Minister for Education, Children and Youth, and Disability Services, Jo Palmer, has also been appointed Minister for Women and the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence.

Ms Palmer and Mr Jaensch were sworn in on Wednesday morning.

Mr Jaensch has returned to cabinet after less than a year on the backbench.

A member of parliament for over a decade, he previously held several ministerial portfolios including Children and Youth, Finance, and Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr Jaensch said he was "grateful" to serve again in cabinet.

Outgoing ministers 'paid a very high price'

Asked outside parliament if he would admit that the former ministers had misled parliament or broken the ministerial code of conduct, Mr Rockliff said they had already "paid a very high price".

"They're on the backbench. They don't have ministries anymore. That accountability has been well demonstrated," he said.

Mr Rockliff also used the press conference to decry what he labelled "personal attacks" against the former ministers in the preceding weeks, taking particular issue with Labor MP Dean Winter's "appalling" attacks against Ms Howlett.

"I was compared to Stalin yesterday, I understand — I mean for heaven's sake, enough's enough,"

Mr Rockliff said.

"Is this the kind of parliament that our crossbench actually want when there is a focus so deeply personal?"