Tasmania in crossfire of Premier Jeremy Rockliff’s war on Elise Archer

How a Premier went to war with his first legal officer – and almost blew up the nation’s last Liberal government – with the story far from over.

Jeremy Rockliff and Elise Archer's war almost blew up the nation's last Liberal government. Picture: Nikki Davis-Jones

It was a moment from which there would be no return: a fundamental breakdown between a premier and the state’s chief law officer.

Elise Archer, Tasmanian Attorney-General and one of the Liberal government’s most senior hands, had been accused of bullying and inappropriate workplace conduct.

Premier Jeremy Rockliff, her colleague of 13 years, had, six days earlier on September 21, informed her in writing of the existence of the allegations and his intention to appoint an independent person to investigate them.

Archer, a former senior lawyer, was enraged. She had not seen the detail of the allegations and was confused as to why they were brought to the Premier by the state’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Sarah Bolt.

And why was Rockliff jumping straight into a formal process that could end her career?

“This is a very serious step to take in relation to a government minister, particularly with such scant detail of the allegations or regard for natural justice,” Archer spat in a letter to the Premier, hand-delivered to him on Wednesday, September 27.

The letter, obtained by The Weekend Australian, reveals an A-G in shock, palpably angry and more than a little scared that her career – which friends and colleagues say was her entire world – was under attack.

Donning her first legal officer’s hat, she told her boss in no uncertain terms he was erring in principles of natural justice and she would not stand for it.

She wanted to see all the relevant documentation from her chief accuser, a former adviser, and from the go-between, Bolt. “You must provide them to me, before you can properly request me to respond,” Archer protested.

What followed was the final nail in the coffin of the relationship, which would from here deteriorate to the point of almost destroying Australia’s last Liberal government.

Archer revealed she had hired a lawyer. Not just any lawyer, but former solicitor-general of seven years Michael O’Farrell SC. A big gun.

And then the bombshell: “Until I am provided with all documents and factual particulars I have requested I can advise that, on legal advice, I cannot and will not be able to co-operate with any such investigation.”

This was war between a premier and chief law officer; a high-powered, high-stakes standoff that was never going to end well.

From that point, both careers were on the line. Archer was not co-operating, nor resigning. She was lawyered up, and on the offensive. Rockliff had lit a fuse.

The next afternoon, Thursday, September 28, The Australian broke news of the allegations and the independent investigation online. This was followed by The Australian’s online publication that night, and in the newspaper on Friday, September 29, of ­WhatsApp messages Archer appeared to have sent to staff excoriating Rockliff (“too weak to be leader”) and his predecessor, Peter Gutwein (“knee-jerk reactions like a child”), among others.

That same Friday morning, Archer received a response from the Premier to her refusal to co-operate.

He was not backing down, telling the attorney-general that “on the basis of the information provided to me, it is in the best interests of all parties to have a suitably qualified, external person” to probe the allegations.

Rockliff told her he had now appointed a former judge, Raymond Finkelstein, to do just that “and provide me with advice”.

Meanwhile, The Australian ­received a fresh batch of leaked WhatsApp missives, apparently sent by Archer to staff, describing another ex-premier as “a liar”, her departmental secretary as “f..king useless” and a fellow minister as “shit”.

The Premier also received some messages more directly, including one suggesting Archer – a key figure in implementing the findings of a commission of inquiry into child sexual abuse responses – had complained she was “sick of victim-survivors”.

Rockliff concluded things had gone too far and Archer had to be cut loose. Only hours after receiving Rockliff’s Finkelstein letter, Archer was asked by the Premier to resign.

The rest is well known. By 3pm Friday, Archer had quit cabinet and the Liberal Party and announced she would leave parliament. Rockliff thought he’d solved the problem.

But over the weekend Archer – a Liberal blue-blood, quiet conservative and big vote puller in Hobart-based Clark – had received support from her heartland.

She had, if anything, grown even more angry at what she perceived as a “stitch-up”; an orchestrated campaign – she believes by the Premier’s senior staff, if not the man himself – to set her up and force her out. The 52-year-old lawyer started to rethink her decision to quit parliament. Why not stay – and bring down the whole rotten show?

Late on Sunday, The Australian revealed Archer’s about-face – and, crucially – that she would vote against the government in a no-confidence motion, in which she would have the casting vote.

Rockliff’s triumph had turned to torment, as the woman he had effectively sacked threatened to return the favour.

Suddenly, the strong man looked weak. To save face, Rockliff eventually set a deadline for Archer to quit parliament or back his government – or else he would call an early election.

Archer blinked; opting not to destroy the government she had served since its election in 2014, and a party she and husband Dale had long been leading figures within. The crisis for now is averted but the saga has further undermined public and business confidence in Rockliff and his minority government.

Lara Alexander – one of two ex-Liberals who quit the party in May to sit as balance-of-power independents – is wavering on previous offers of confidence and supply, in light of the episode.

Rockliff’s triumph quickly turned to torment. Picture: Chris Kidd

Rockliff believes he’s done the right thing; Archer believes herself the victim.

With little apparent legal recourse, she is understood to be considering making a complaint to the state’s Integrity Commission about Bolt’s role, believing the commissioner was acting outside her statutory responsibilities in taking allegations to the Premier.

Bolt, who has not responded to questions from The Weekend Australian, in 2022 held an inquiry into workplace culture in MP and ministerial officers. Her findings identified a toxic enclave that had somehow missed the reforms that had cleaned up other workplaces in recent decades.

As part of that process, Bolt became aware of a number of complaints about Archer and her office, which had an extraordinary rate of staff turnover.

Bolt, given her past inquiry role, presumably felt compelled to share the complaints with the Premier.

One staff member – whose allegations formed the central basis of the Premier’s investigation – is on workers’ compensation. Another former senior staff member told Bolt’s inquiry Archer had engaged in “bullying”, “erratic” and “damaging” conduct, mostly by belittling staff and ministerial colleagues. Archer denies such claims and has privately told people some of her former staff have been guilty of bullying and poor behaviour themselves, and that this drove the turnover.

By running again as an independent, Archer would split the Liberal vote. Picture: Chris Kidd

She believes one or more disgruntled ex-staffers has sought to bring her down by passing on messages taken “out of context” to the Premier’s office.

The story is not over. Rockliff faces ongoing fallout. He must get those disgruntled independent ex-Liberal MPs onside, or still face a successful no-confidence motion, and must calm his surviving party room.

His position may be further weakened by the likely election, on a recount to replace Archer, of Simon Behrakis, a conservative who works as an adviser to his ambitious deputy, Michael Ferguson.

The Premier also faces claims – rejected by the government – that he may have breached the state’s criminal code by pressuring Archer to either back him or leave parliament. (It’s a serious offence to use “threats and intimidation of any kind” to influence an MP).

Some believe Archer may run as an independent at the election due in May 2025 but likely to come well before. While ruling it out “at this stage”, she has not closed the door entirely.

She achieved almost a quota in her own right in Clark at the last election. At the next one, the quota required for election under the Hare Clark system will be lower, due to an increase in the size of the Assembly from 25 to 35 members.

By running again as an independent, she would split the Liberal vote, making Rockliff’s task of achieving majority even harder.

If elected, given the likelihood of a hung parliament, the former A-G could even have a balance-of power role, deciding the fate of those who just sealed hers.