Updated Integrity Commissioner advice then sought by Kelleher noted the board had raised concerns about reputational risk, but also the risk of damaging its relationship with Nicholls.
Loading
Kelleher said she was placed under intense scrutiny by a board she had only joined in April last year and which she believed felt spooked by the change of government.
The advice, shared with this masthead, showed commissioner Linda Waugh found conflicts around board “matters or decisions regarding abortion or sexual or reproductive health” could be managed.
Under a plan drafted in December, Kelleher would be “quarantined” from such matters and would also liaise over any planned public comments or activities. It was never approved by Nicholls.
In letters to Kelleher directing her to “resolve” what he deemed was an unmanageable conflict, Nicholls also said her Churchill Fellowship call was at odds with the government position.
“Which is to make no amendments [to abortion laws] in this term of government,” he said.
A spokesperson for Nicholls declined to comment last week when first contact by this masthead, citing an inability to comment on individual workplace matters.
But on Tuesday, Nicholls said his role was to “request people to resolve their conflicts of interest”.
“I acted in accordance with the advice I received, the legal advice I received, from the department … The legal advice was that Ms Kelleher had to resolve her conflicts of interest,” he said.
“Now, there are a number of options that were available to her, and she chose to resign. And that’s the way she chose to resolve that conflict of interest.”
In a statement to this masthead, Kelleher reiterated her belief that the options available were to either quit as chief executive of Sexual and Reproductive Health Australia or the $44,000 per-year board role.
She said Nicholls’ claim that his role was to ask people to resolve conflicts was incorrect, as it was also his decision to deem her conflicts unmanageable and not approve her management plan.
“I gave him real options by presenting a management plan, and he backed me into a decision I was forced to make,” she said.
Loading
“If the conflicts weren’t about abortion and this government’s political fear of reproductive rights, he would be applying this same logic to other HHS board members and you’d have zero health experts on government health boards.”
The Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service is yet to respond to a request for comment.
Contacted about the matter, Transparency International Australia chief executive Clancy Moore said Queensland had long been a leader in transparency and integrity.
“[This includes] the establishment of the Integrity Commission model to give advice on conflicts of interest and other ethical issues,” Moore said.
“Trust in our democracy suffers when governments are seen to be appointing their mates to board roles or removing people they don’t agree with.”
Despite the LNP’s sweeping changes to other boards, revealed by this masthead, it could previously only remove health service directors for reasons including convictions, insolvency, or incompetence.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
