The hearing room in Parliament House filled with journalists and industry representatives as Tasracing’s communications consultant told MPs he had shown the disputed messaging to a senior ministerial adviser, a revelation that has sharpened calls for Tasmanian Racing Minister Jane Howlett to explain both an election caretaker breach and more than $300,000 in taxpayer-funded legal fees. Nicolas Turner told a Hobart parliamentary committee he had sent the text and related messaging about the government’s TasInsure policy to Luke Gaetani, a senior adviser in Howlett’s office, and that Gaetani would have seen the message that went to industry. Those statements sit against statutory declarations tabled by Howlett in March that said Gaetani had no prior knowledge of any public communication.

Inside a Hobart parliamentary committee hearing on Monday, Nicolas Turner told MPs he had sent the text and related messaging to Luke Gaetani, a senior adviser in Howlett’s office, and that Gaetani "would have seen the message that was sent to industry."

Turner said Gaetani was made aware that Tasracing intended to issue public communication about TasInsure, the Liberal government’s policy that the message praised, although Turner added Gaetani was not shown the final form of the outgoing text and social media post. "If it was four paragraphs, he would have seen the entirety of the message," Turner told MPs. He also declined to endorse Gaetani’s account when pressed, saying, "well, that’s a matter for him."

Emails obtained under right-to-information laws were also put to the committee, and those emails show Turner sent the material to Gaetani before the message went externally to racing participants. The evidence presented at the sitting was reported by the ABC, and it has intensified scrutiny of how ministerial offices coordinate with statutory bodies.

The committee’s focus is more than procedural. The Tasracing messaging was judged to have breached caretaker conventions during the lead-up to last year’s state election, a finding that gives the matter a political as well as administrative edge. Opposition and crossbench MPs seized on Turner’s account to press for accountability, and the Greens joined Labor in urging Howlett to explain the communications lapse and the legal spending tied to her office.

Howlett’s legal bill has become a separate flashpoint. Opposition and crossbench MPs are demanding answers about more than $300,000 in taxpayer funding claimed for her legal costs, saying the size of the expenditure and the lack of public detail aren't acceptable.

Mastheads

That concern has compounded broader cabinet credibility issues after a related affair involving former minister Madeleine Ogilvie.

Ogilvie resigned from cabinet on May 30 after it emerged she had not disclosed she had initiated Supreme Court proceedings she had previously denied. Tasmanian government records show taxpayers spent about $120,000 on Ogilvie’s legal fees between 2023 and 2025, a figure opposition MPs have used to argue for clearer rules and greater transparency.

Premier Jeremy Rockliff has publicly acknowledged the political damage from the legal-fee controversies and moved to tighten rules. Reporting by Pulsetasmania quotes Rockliff apologising for his handling of Ogilvie’s legal fees, saying, "I accept that I should have interrogated the issue further and ensured a more appropriate response was provided," and, "I regret I didn’t. I should have. And for that I apologise." He has instructed his department to develop new provisions aimed at greater transparency, including enhanced public reporting of legal expenditure and potential cross-party visibility over decisions to grant indemnities.

Rockliff described the reforms as part of a "broader review" intended to give Tasmanians "greater visibility" over how their money is spent, while also protecting legally sensitive information. Those moves haven't quieted critics. Crossbench MPs have set deadlines and warned of parliamentary consequences if explanations aren't forthcoming.

Labor leader Josh Willie has pressed the premier to say when he was informed about Ogilvie’s court action, when he approved any indemnity, and why he didn't require her to correct the parliamentary record. Independent MPs have said ministers who have misled parliament or who face serious investigations should stand aside or be stood aside by the premier until matters are resolved.

The episode has put a spotlight on the processes that govern taxpayer-funded legal indemnities and the transparency of ministerial offices during sensitive political periods. For ministers, the twin pressures of a confirmed communications breach and a large legal bill present both reputational and parliamentary risk. For the government, the questions are procedural and political: who saw the messaging, who authorised indemnities, and how will the new reporting rules change practice?

Parliament returns on Tuesday, and MPs from across the chamber are expected to put the new evidence and legal-fee disputes on the floor. Advisers will be watching whether a formal no-confidence or censure motion is pursued, and crossbench MPs have given the premier until Friday to provide direct answers about the handling and disclosure of ministerial legal indemnities.

Related Articles

Parliament returns on Tuesday, and the premier has until Friday to answer crossbench questions about how ministerial legal indemnities were granted and disclosed. Originally reported by ABC News.

This article was created with AI assistance.