Gladys Berejiklian’s excruciating day at the ICAC inquiry

Former NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian spent a brutal day being grilled by ICAC on her relationship with former boyfriend MP Daryl Maguire. Here is an edited transcript of yesterday’s key moments.

It was an at times jaw-dropping day at ICAC as the focus on Gladys Berejiklian’s relationship with Daryl Maguire intensified with every phone tap that was played.

And there were also very tense moments between Ms Berejiklian and ICAC barrister Scott Robertson.

Here are some of the key moments.

BEREJIKLIAN: I TRUSTED HIM

SCOTT ROBERTSON (COUNSEL ASSISTING): Let’s put aside the disclosure requirements for a moment. Did it at least strike you as strange that a member of parliament would somehow be able to make the very large sum of $1.5m, in effect, a secondary employment job, while being a member of parliament?

GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: I don’t think I took it too seriously.

ROBERTSON: Did it not at least cross your mind Mr Maguire must be getting something for his $1.5m? It must be something more than simply introducing someone to a particular site. It’s not $10,000 as a finder’s fee or $50,000. It’s $1.5m, at least according to Mr Maguire. You might not have known whether or not Mr Maguire was engaged in inappropriate or corrupt conduct but you must have at least suspected that having regard to that information, didn’t you?

BEREJIKLIAN: No. I don’t think I would have paid it any attention. I don’t even know if I listened properly.

ROBERTSON: Well, as at September of 2017 and perhaps even to the present day, the 40 questions as to the way in which land around Badgerys Creek is a matter of political controversy or at least a matter of community debate?

BEREJIKLIAN: I’ve not paid, well, I’ve not paid too much attention to what you’re referring to specifically.

Gladys Berejiklian arriving at the ICAC hearing in Sydney. Picture: Tim Hunter.

ROBERTSON: What I’m suggesting to you is that, at least in the vicinity of Badgerys Creek, questions about things like where roads might be built or what zoning might take place are matters which, to your knowledge as a minister, are matters that could affect things like the commercial value of land. Correct?

BEREJIKLIAN: Well, I wasn’t across any detail of that.

ROBERTSON: You might not have been across the detail but you at least knew enough to know that that was a matter of at least significant community debate and, in fact, at least to some extent continues to be?

BEREJIKLIAN: I wouldn’t have said, I wouldn’t have said known enough about it but, no doubt, some people didn’t want the airport, so that was certainly controversial. But I wouldn’t have paid too much attention to detail that I didn’t need to pay attention to.

ROBERTSON: But I’m trying to understand why would you believe, because that’s your words, he says, “Can you believe it in one sale?” And you say something like, “Yeah, I believe it,” or, “I believe it,” or something along those lines. Why did you believe that Mr Maguire might make $1.5m off a land sale?

BEREJIKLIAN: I can’t confirm that I was even paying attention or listening properly to that conversation.

ROBERTSON: But the answer, as I showed you, it wasn’t just a “mmm” or, you know “whatever, whatever, I’ve got to go” it was something, like, “I can believe it,” or “Can believe it,” or, “I believe it,” something along those lines.

BEREJIKLIAN: I may have just been polite.

ROBERTSON: By saying, “I believe it”?

BEREJIKLIAN: Well, I wouldn’t take my words literally. It was literally I had no understanding of the context, I doubt I would have paid much attention to it and I certainly wouldn’t have taken it seriously.

ROBERTSON: So are you saying it didn’t even cross your mind that it was strange that a sitting member of parliament was suggesting to you that he might be able to make something like $1.5m in relation to a property deal?

BEREJIKLIAN: I would have disregarded it, dismissed it, or not taken it seriously, or not thought about it, to be honest. If I was very busy, I would have just been obliging and, and let the conversation continue, but I, I wouldn’t have taken it seriously or at least assumed that anything untoward was happening. He was someone I trusted and I also believe he was someone my colleagues trusted.

Gladys Berejiklian was being continually grilled on why she didn’t reveal her relationship status with Daryl Maguire.

ROBERTSON: Does that mean the answer to my question is no? It didn’t cross your mind that it was strange or unusual or unexpected that a sitting member of parliament expected or thought or was suggesting that they could make some $1.5m in relation to a property deal?

BEREJIKLIAN: Well, he was always talking about pie-in-the-sky things, so I don’t think I would have given it any degree of importance or relevance.

ROBERTSON: Does that mean the answer to my question is no or is it some other answer?

BEREJIKLIAN: I’m sorry, can you repeat the question, please?

ROBERTSON: It didn’t even cross your mind, is this right, it didn’t even cross your mind that it might be strange or unusual or unexpected that a then sitting member of parliament was saying to you that “I’m expecting to make some $1.5m in relation to a single property deal”?

BEREJIKLIAN: It wouldn’t have crossed my mind that it would materialise. I would have assumed it’s pie in the sky, and I wouldn’t have given it any other thought.

BEREJIKLIAN: IN MY LOVE CIRCLE

ROBERTSON: So Mr Maguire talked about some feelings that he had for you and some feelings that he understood you had for him. Did you have similar feelings, by which I mean feelings of love and the like, as to those that Mr Maguire identified in his evidence?

BEREJIKLIAN: I had those feelings but I was never assured of a level of commitment which, in my mind, would have required me to introduce him to my parents or introduce him to my sisters or regarded as sufficiently significant to declare.

ROBERTSON: You and him at least discussed introducing Mr Maguire to your parents as, in effect, a boyfriend or a close partner. Is that right?

BEREJIKLIAN: I’m sure we did discuss it.

ROBERTSON: At least at one point in time during the course of the close personal relationship, you regarded Mr Maguire as part of your family?

BEREJIKLIAN: I’m sure I had feelings that I would, would, would hope that was the case, yes.

ROBERTSON: Does that mean you’re agreeing with me that at least at one point in time during the course of the relationship, you regarded Mr Maguire as part of your family?

BEREJIKLIAN: I never regarded him as family in terms of the Ministerial Code. We didn’t share any finances.

ROBERTSON: Let’s not worry about the terms of the Ministerial Code, at least for the time being. At least in your mind, did you regard Mr Maguire as part of your family?

BEREJIKLIAN: Not in the legal sense, no.

ROBERTSON: Well, when you consider whether someone’s in your family or not, do you only consider that through a prism of a legal code or do you have —

BEREJIKLIAN: But I would —

Daryl Maguire with Gladys Berejiklian.

ROBERTSON: — a separate concept, just let me finish my question. Do you have a separate concept, at least in your own mind, as to whether or not someone is part of your family or not?

BEREJIKLIAN: But I would regard close friends as part of my family if you took that definition. I would regard my best friends or extended friends or associates as part of my family. It’s, that is a very loose term and, and I would regard, as I said, my best friends as part of my family if you took that definition.

(Berejiklian is shown a text message exchange in which she refers to Mr Maguire as her family.)

ROBERTSON: “But you are my family.” Do you see that there?

BEREJIKLIAN: Yes, I do.

ROBERTSON: So at least as at 12 April, 2018, you regarded Mr Maguire as part of your family. Is that right?

BEREJIKLIAN: Well, in terms of my feelings but definitely not in any legal sense and definitely not in terms of anything that I felt I needed to put on the public record.

ROBERTSON: We’ll let the lawyers argue about the law, but is this right, at least in terms of your feelings, you regarded Mr Maguire to be part of your family as at April of 2018?

BEREJIKLIAN: Well, there’s no doubt I had strong feelings for him but I wasn’t assured of his commitment.

ROBERTSON: Does that mean the answer to my question is yes?

BEREJIKLIAN: Can you repeat the question, please?

ROBERTSON: At least as at 12 April, 2018, you regarded Mr Maguire as part of your family?

BEREJIKLIAN: I had very strong feelings for him but I did not, I wouldn’t have regarded him as a relative.

ROBERTSON: As at 12 April, 2018, you regarded Mr Maguire as part of your family. Correct?

BEREJIKLIAN: I had very strong feelings for him, yes.

ROBERTSON: So is the answer to my question yes?

BEREJIKLIAN: No, I did not regard him as a member of my family. I had strong feelings for him.

Gladys Berejiklian will return to ICAC to answer more questions. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Damian Shaw

ROBERTSON: So as at 12 April, 2018, you did not regard Mr Maguire as part of your 20 family, is that what you’re saying?

BEREJIKLIAN: I would not have introduced him or, or, or regarded him as, as, as a member of my family.

ROBERTSON: So does that mean that as at 12 April, 2018 you did not regard Mr Maguire as part of your family? Is that your evidence?

BEREJIKLIAN: I don’t want to undermine, I don’t want to diminish the strength of feeling I had for him, and I don’t want to diminish that in any way. I had very strong feelings for him. But I didn’t feel the relationship was at a stage where I would introduce him necessarily to my parents or my sisters or need to declare it, but I don’t want to underscore what I felt. But I didn’t always feel that was reciprocated and I didn’t feel a level of commitment.

ROBERTSON: So what’s the answer to my question, then? Did you or did you not regard Mr Maguire as part of your family as at 12 April, 2018?

BEREJIKLIAN: I didn’t regard him as a member of my family in the same way that I regard my parents or my sisters. I regarded him as a part of my love circle, part of people that I strongly cared for, but I, I wouldn’t have put him in the same category as my parents or my sisters.

BEREJIKLIAN HOLDS OFF SACKING OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL

DARYL MAGUIRE: Well, I had ahh what’s his name (redacted) come and see me today they rang me.

BEREJIKLIAN: I can’t stand that guy.

MAGUIRE: Hmm.

BEREJIKLIAN: His head will be gone soon.

MAGUIRE: Not until he fixes my conservatorium.

BEREJIKLIAN: Yeah, OK.

MAGUIRE: He’s the only one that’s come to do it.

BEREJIKLIAN: All right, good, tell him to fix it and then after he fixes it I’m sacking him.

$170M IN FIVE MINUTES

MAGUIRE: Anyway, you need to find at least five hundred thousand or a million dollars to keep Tumut planning going.

BEREJIKLIAN: Ehm.

MAGUIRE: Just to have a line item. And – and, you know, five hundred thousand –

BEREJIKLIAN: Can you text Brad – can you stress and text Brad cause I’ve, I’ve got you now got you the $170m in five minutes. You can at least get a few hundred thousand from Brad just keep texting him. If you keep bothering him he’ll fix it OK.

MAGUIRE: Yeah – yeah, I’ll go see Lee and she’ll fix it.

BEREJIKLIAN: You can’t have me fixing all the problems all the time.

MAGUIRE: I tell you what if you went to the budget without Wagga on it
you –

BEREJIKLIAN: Yeah I just fixed it OK.

MAGUIRE: THEY COULD BE RECORDING US

MAGUIRE: The only stress I’ve got is the 10 grand I have to pay right to go and you know explain myself, for Christ’s sake. You know that these people think these people think that it’s f —king Sydney, you know it costs you nothing to go to Sydney, costs you nothing to stay, to do all this stuff. You know, honestly, they live in their own world and everybody’s corrupt. You can’t even have a conversation with people now. They’re taping it. They’re getting your texts they’re doing all this stuff. And they conjuring stuff. So, you know, they conjure up stuff there’s got to be a better way that that people that are doing the wrong thing apparently for what was that can be dealt with.

BEREJIKLIAN: Did your lawyer go through everything –

MAGUIRE: Yeah, but I don’t have a lot of the technology left. I don’t have, you know, access to bloody emails and things, I mean, Christ. You know, the emails side I feel f —king hopeless, I don’t install things, how I do know what’s said. You try and separate things as best you can so that you don’t implement the parliament and you know (inaudible) all those things until you get in trouble. How’s that you can have a conversation with someone and that’s taken as well you’re corrupt, or this or you’re that. I mean it’s just horseshit. It’s worse than the f —king Spanish Inquisition that people can’t even talk anymore. You know they could be taping your conversation with me right now. You wouldn’t know and people have no right to a conversation whether in good intent or bad intent. You can have an innocent conversation (inaudible) and suddenly you’re in trouble.

BEREJIKLIAN: As long as you know you’ve done nothing wrong.

MAGUIRE: I have nothing to fear.