Premier’s Office Lies To Public, Bypassed Central Media Buying in Discounted Pulse Deal

Following our initial investigation into Pulse Tasmania and the Rockliff Government, exclusive revelations via RTI confirm the government breaking both caretaker conventions and traditional advertising practices.

This follows earlier claims by the government that it had engaged in no wrongdoing and that its marketing was conducted through competitive tender processes. However, new information defeat those statements, raising significant questions about the accuracy of prior public representations and the integrity of the government’s advertising practices.

The Direct Booking Evidence

RTI documents provided by TT Chief Editor Geoffery Swan, first revelaed by Signal News confirm that the 100% SOV “Full Digital Takeover” was organised directly from the Premier’s Office, bypassing the government’s standard media agency protocols which sees marketing handled through separate offices and “a competitive tendering process” claimed by the Premier’s own delegated RTI officer.

The key negotiator was James Whiteley, a senior media adviser to the Premier who conducted negotiations with PMG (Pulse Media Group). Mr Whitely attracted previous attention in our investigation which saw Pulse supplied materials from the Premier’s advisor without proper attribution, as well as insight of Mr Whitely more broadly being connected to a “media/PR” family, with one relative being the DPAC Director of Communications & PR while another involved in directing interstate campaigns for the Liberal Party.

Internal invoices were sent to Carol Jones (the manager of Premier & Ministerial Services @ DPAC). The deal was signed on 6th and 11th June 2025 prior to the government’s no-confidence motion.

The “Discount” Mystery

In the proposals shown, the >$55k deal saw the state government receive a 26% discount, which it claimed was a “standard rate/offering” under the Gray Matters Advertising (GMA) contract. However RTI confirms that this discount was built into PMG’s proposal and returned no evidence of involvement with GMA. Revelations also confirm of a direct relationship existing between PMG/Josh Agnew and the Premier’s office, which up until this point had been patchy.

This discovery supports the Auditor-General’s referral which confirms that high-cost advertising decisions were being made within the Premier’s Office while the government “mandate” (or operation”) was in question.

For context, Jeremy Rockliff lost a no-confidence motion moved by Labor 18-17 on 5th June where following its defeat the government signed multiple extensions with Pulse, first a two-day extension on the 6th at 1:33pm (signed by James Whitely), and an amended contract on the 11th June @ 5:56pm by Carol Jones, hours before an election was called.

Through that period, RTI reveals the Premier’s office kept an extremely close eye on performance metrics, requesting Pulse to provide updates throughout the period. This during what was a sensitive time raises questions as to whether promotions were purely informational or or had an electoral impact (even if pre-election).

Agnew’s Questions Answered And Unanswered

While some may see this investigation coming to a close, the concerns surrounding Pulse have not entirely disappeared. However, what our investigation has proven is that there is a direct relationship between the Premier’s office and Josh Agnew/Pulse Tasmania, and more specifically a relationship between Jeremy Rockliff and Agnew in both a professional and private capacity which raises integrity concerns.

While responsibility for compliance with government procurement requirements ultimately rests with the government, Pulse proceeded with (and extended) the agreement once negotiated. While this does not suggest illegal or improper conduct on Pulse’s part, it raises questions about the due diligence applied in entering into a high-value, exclusive advertising arrangement directly with the Premier’s Office rather than through a 3rd party or GMO. Correspondences show no confusion or questioning on Pulse’s part with working directly with the PO, which would have been released under this RTI request if they existed.

Pulse was also fully aware of the political context having covered the 5 June no-confidence motion defeat extensively and the government’s narrow 18–17 position in parliament. The decision to secure and extend a 100% share-of-voice agreement during that period of instability may invite scrutiny regarding timing and optics, particularly given the direct involvement of the Premier’s Office.

Liberal Government’s Interest To Centralise Department Media Units.

In other documents obtained by Signal News we are provided more context which, following the election and investigations in November sees DPAC accelerating its efforts to consolidate all department media into a “communications shared service” (CSS).

The RTI reveals DPAC has carriage of the Productivity and Efficiency Unit and that agencies are asked to nominate Deputy‑Secretary‑level reps to work with DPAC on the shared service’s development, with an indication that the work will not be communicated broadly until a way forward is settled. DPAC has largely kept this under the rader, through “budget in confidence” and notifying departments it would not disclose information until a few hurdles are met first.

Officially, the consolidation is being driven under an election commitment to reduce government expenditure and to increase efficiency, but the following months have seen greater scrutiny over its media practices which may be prompting it to tighten communications across departments for political reasons.

While many of the departments were interested in the proposition of consolidation, the department of police, fire and emergency services (DPFEM) requested to be excluded from such a model on “operational and safety grounds”.

“Given the nature of our media management being specifically operationally driven by requests relating to police, fire and SES community safety matters I am of the view that we would be excluded from discussions regarding a shared service model” – Donna Adams (TAS Police Commissioner).

The Department of State Growth (DSG) while initially supportive, raises concerns of centralisation leading to politicisation and blurring the lines between impartial department comms and and GMO’s political operations.

“While we are supportive of functional leadership on this one its going to be really important on scope definition (internal vs external vs stakeholder management etc) and how communications will continue to be apolitical and separate from the GMO.” – Craig Limkin (CEO DSG).

As of now it is not confirmed of the GMOs involvement, what is clear is that this proposed CSS is a “DPAC-led shared service” which could see it controlled within DPAC which may operationally be overseen by DPAC executives reporting to the secretary, and (politically) to the Premier. The RTI explicitly states the government’s interest in consolidating communications, along with marketing and other functions.

While DPAC is de jure an apolitical state service, in practice it progresses the interest of the party in power, A belief reinforced by political opponents such as Labor who at previous elections raised concerns of political appointments.

More directly however, a high ranking member of a government department blew the whistle to Signal News over politicisation which also claimed the existence of high executive appointments.

Internally our outlet cross examined names of DPAC’s media team which saw MP family and LPA members employed in its offices, additional confirmations can also be made way back in 2024 where when our outlet first started up, we attempted to interview Minister Abetz, confirming at least two of his advisors to be LPA members at that point. 

Concerns Over Press Access And Public Accountability

Another concern to be considered is the public’s access to information with the development of a CSS which would see all communications serviced under 1 unit.

In early January TDMG (on behalf of Signal News) requested press access to the DPAC which now close to 2 months has not been granted. This follows previous blacklisting by the department and the Liberal Party going back to March 2025 which saw all requests and communications ignored.

In November, when questioning the Premier directly on his relationship with Pulse Tasmania I was “allegedly” shoved by one of DPAC’s media staff, and faced strong opposition by the other staffer James Whiteley who attempted to block my questions to the Premier during the Pro-AFL rally.

During the same period, PMG owner Josh Agnew contacted multiple local councillors following the RTI’s release. One councillor, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the contact as “indirect pressure” and said they felt discouraged from commenting publicly.

The RTI primarily concerned government advertising processes and the role of the Premier’s Office.

Agnew has not publicly responded to these characterisations in previous reporting. All emails since December have been ignored by the outlet for comment.

The Pathways Forwards

In December, Shadow Attorney General Ella Haddad questioned the government pouring tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars into what was perceived as “political-style advertising” when it knew an election was imminent.

The government defended its actions stating that “it did nothing wrong” and that the deal provided was of great value.

Tasmanian Labor has already referred DPAC’s advertising practices to the Auditor General for review while the Greens also raised concerns in December, calling on “the Premier to come clean on advertising spending”.

The Auditor has the power to reveal documents and previously hidden information while also barring the government from taking evasive actions (such as evidence destruction), its broad range of powers may unsurface more information previously hidden from RTI and supply elected members further resources to take action.

If deemed reasonable, politicians may compel the Premier to appear before a parliamentary committee, which could be initiated by the opposition or crossbench. The revelation of today’s findings may justify grounds for such actions to be taken but we are yet to hear from parties if they plan to take more action.