Non-existent gag order used to hush report

Palaszczuk government hides behind non-existent gag order to avoid questions on Jackie Trad’s legal bill.

Jackie Trad lost her seat of South Brisbane at the 2020 election. Picture: Steve Pohlner

The Palaszczuk government is hiding behind a non-existent gag order of the Queensland Supreme Court to avoid questions on whether taxpayers are funding Jackie Trad’s legal bid to suppress a Crime and Corruption Commission report.

The decision to cover the mounting legal bills would have had to be signed off by Queensland Premier Annastacia Palas­zczuk and Attorney-General Shannon Fentiman, a close Left factional ally of Ms Trad. In February, it was revealed in parliament that the former Labor deputy premier and treasurer had taken the extraordinary step of seeking a Supreme Court order to keep ­secret a CCC report from its year-long probe into the recruitment of public servants.

Ms Trad, who lost her seat of South Brisbane at the 2020 election, launched her court action last year, recruiting a team of solicitors and highly paid barristers.

It is estimated the application to the Supreme Court, which is being heard behind closed doors, has already cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The CCC’s investigation stemmed from allegations that Ms Trad improperly interfered in the 2019 appointment of her under-treasurer, Frankie Carroll.

Ms Trad denies wrongdoing in relation to the allegations.

The probe was later widened by the corruption watchdog to probe other senior public service recruitments back to when the Palas­zczuk government first took power in 2015.

The report from the CCC investigation is understood to be critical of Ms Trad and the government and forced a directive, published in the Queensland Govern­ment Gaz­ette in June last year, dictating that appointments should be “merit-based” and properly documented by selection panels. In February, LNP frontbencher Jarrod Bleijie revealed Ms Trad had launched the legal bid.

Ms Palaszczuk and Ms Fentiman have since refused to discuss the case or avoided answering questions in parliament about whether taxpayers are paying for Ms Trad’s legal bills.

Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Tertius Pickard

Ms Fentiman told parliament that Mr Bleijie’s call for the Premier to release the report “prior to the decision of the court” would “absolutely amount to contempt”.

The offices of Ms Palaszczuk and the Attorney-General – in refusing to answer questions from The Australian – cited the risk of contempt of the Supreme Court arising out of a non-publication order issued by the court over the case. Neither office would put the reasons for its silence in writing.

Last November, when contacted about the case, Ms Trad put The Australian on notice that there was a “blanket” non-publication order. Her lawyers in February also wrote to several media outlets warning that any reporting of Mr Bleijie’s comments in parliament about the case “will be in breach of a Non-Publication Order”.

As far as The Australian is aware, there is no such gag order.

The court registry in February advised this newspaper that there was one order related to Ms Trad’s application to the Supreme Court which restricted access only to the hearings and documents on the court file.

“No person other than the parties and the parties’ represen­tatives may have access without leave of the court,’’ the registry said.

On two occasions in parliament, Ms Palaszczuk has avoided specifically answering a question on whether taxpayers are funding Ms Trad’s case.

When asked by Mr Bleijie on February 24, Ms Palaszczuk avoiding answering the question but made reference to “legal indemnity” guidelines under which government frontbenchers can have their legal bills paid by taxpayers.

“Let me say very clearly to the member for Kawana, who was a former attorney-general in this state – we all remember that very well – that legal indemnity guidelines are available,’’ she said.

“They are available publicly on the website. They are available to both sides of politics.”

The guidelines for ministers and assistant ministers cover the legal costs incurred relating to “investigations, inquiries, civil proceedings” and, in some cases, criminal proceedings, but the legal cost will be covered only if it “relates to the minister’s duties”.

The attorney-general’s prior approval is required to initiate civil proceedings if it does not relate to the minister’s duties and there is no specified provision to cover the costs of a former minister.