What happens next for Madeleine Ogilvie's legal fee saga?

It's been two weeks since Madeleine Ogilvie resigned. What could happen when parliament returns? Fri 12 Jun 2026 at 5:20am It's been two weeks since Madeleine Ogilvie resigned from cabinet, and the saga is reaching a tipping point. Premier Jeremy Rockliff's apology for not interrogating the issue further appears not to have eased the concerns of the crossbench. There's still brooding anger about Ms Ogilvie's statements to parliament, and her legal fees — the purpose of which is still unknown. It means the issue could go to the next level upon state parliament's return next Tuesday. What could happen when parliament returns? The Greens have floated a range of measures including: a censure motion on the premier, referral to privileges committee and ordering the government to produce documents. A censure motion is akin to a parliamentary telling off. While it can be undignifying, it carries no formal penalty and no Tasmanian premier has been the subject of a successful censure motion before. Sports Minister Nick Duigan was censured by the parliament last year for withdrawing a funding offer made during the state election campaign to the North Launceston Football Club. He could also be referred to the Privileges Committee, which investigates the behaviour of MPs and their adherence to parliamentary rules. The government may also be required to produce documents about the scandal. For any motion to pass the parliament, 18 votes would be needed — meaning Labor and the Greens would need to find another four crossbenchers to jump on board. We're not going to an election again, are we? The opposition, and independent MP Peter George, have both counted out the possibility of a no-confidence motion. It's been just 11 months since the last state election, which came nearly three years early itself. Nobody wants another one just yet. Stranger things have happened though. What has the premier apologised for? Mr Rockliff has apologised for not "interrogating" further whether Ms Ogilvie misled parliament. The premier said he became aware last year that the former Science Minister had told an estimates committee in November she was not subject or party to any Supreme Court action, but also that there had been a clarification. Loading...It was only after Ms Ogilvie avoided answering a question about that statement on May 21 this year that he delved further into the issue. "Clearly, the original answer and indeed clarification was not adequate," Mr Rockliff said on Wednesday this week. He told reporters he and Ms Ogilvie then discussed providing a "more fulsome" answer. Ms Ogilvie revealed she was part of Supreme Court action on May 28. What questions are there still? We don't know why Ms Ogilvie didn't choose to actively correct the record instead of offering up the new information that she was part of Supreme Court action in response to questions from the Greens. Had she done that, this story may have been different. We still don't know why the government ministers wouldn't answer any questions about this issue, given that the premier has been able to give information about what he knew. Asked why he hadn't given an explanation in estimates hearing, Mr Rockliff told reporters on Wednesday: "I'm well aware of my legal responsibilities when it comes to certain matters. "I believe a representative from the Integrity Commission was on ABC radio yesterday and if you listen to that interview, you may well appreciate the circumstances that I find myself in." In the interview Mr Rockliff is referring to Chief Commissioner Robert Hay KC who told ABC Mornings he could not give an update on the watchdog's investigations into government MPs. Do we know what the legal fees are for? The public still has no clue what legal action it is being asked to fund. At last count, it is $120,000 for Ms Ogilvie, $300,000 for Jane Howlett, and $15,000 for Mark Shelton. All of them have refused to answer questions, pointing to legal considerations. Both Ms Ogilvie and Ms Howlett have promised they'll give an explanation at the end of the matter. How far does parliamentary privilege go? Ms Ogilvie and Ms Howlett have pointed to legal proceedings as the reason they could not give full explanations about their legal fees. "Parliamentary privilege" gives MPs the cover to say what they like in the chamber, without fear of being sued or prosecuted. It raises the question of whether an MP could break a court suppression order or confidentiality requirements of any other act, to answer questions about their legal action. Or whether a non-government MP may start making some accusations about those legal fees. University of Tasmania political analyst Richard Herr said that parliamentary privilege and the freedom of speech it confers would supersede a court suppression order or the confidentiality requirements of another act. "In broad constitutional terms, the parliament will always win,"he said. "A member of parliament would, in my view, be protected by privilege for what they've said … but it isn't necessarily to the benefit of the parliament or the courts, if that's done." Dr Herr said there were other considerations, and that while parliaments may hold extraordinary power, they tended to keep out of "the proper execution of justice as decided by the court". "Politically, it tends to be the case that both the executive and the parliament respect that the court means what it says."