Berejiklian in protection mode when facing ICAC

Gladys Berejiklian’s evidence at ICAC has placed her reputation in question, writes James O’Doherty.

In the days after Gladys Berejiklian’s secret tryst with Daryl Maguire was revealed at the corruption watchdog last year, the then-premier embarked on a deliberate strategy to avoid the fallout from a dodgy ex-boyfriend.

She painted herself as the victim of a bad relationship, admitting that she loved Maguire and wanted to marry him. Berejiklian even told The Sunday Telegraph that she had “given up on love”.

This candour, in contrast with her testimony at the Independent Commission Against Corruption where she said the relationship wasn’t of “sufficient substance” to be declared, clearly resonated with the public.

But 12 months later, it came back to bite her.

Daryl Maguire.

Gladys Berejiklian.

Ms Berejiklian’s radio blitz — as described by this newspaper at the time — was one of a number of factors considered by ICAC Assistant Commissioner Ruth McColl when she ruled that details of the Berejiklian-Maguire relationship should be heard in public.

Similarly, Berejiklian’s evidence at the ICAC could be seen as protecting her short-term interests over her long-term ambitions.

The former premier insisted that given her time again, she still wouldn’t have declared her relationship. She said that after Maguire was ensnared in a 2018 corruption probe, she racked her brain about whether she needed to make a report to ICAC – but deemed she knew nothing that could assist the commission.

Berejiklian insisted she didn’t need to disclose her relationship as a potential conflict of interest as it was part of her “personal life” and “completely separate” from her professional duties.

And she maintained that a directive from her secret lover to get a private phone and download the Chinese encrypted messaging app WeChat didn’t raise any red flags – despite the request coming just four days after Maguire revealed he had been subpoenaed to give evidence to the ICAC.

Any statements otherwise could have risked being seen as an admission she did the wrong thing but her evidence threatens to call into question her judgment.

Leaving the ICAC on Monday, Berejiklian declared she now wanted to “get on with my life”. Regardless of what the corruption watchdog finds, her evidence could have an impact on what that life looks like.

It would not be fanciful to think that a high-powered CEO, watching Berejiklian’s defence of her actions, would question whether the former premier has a blind spot for following proper procedure.

Gladys Berejiklian (top right), judge Ruth McColl SC presiding (bottom right) and counsel assisting the commission Scott Robertson (top left) in the ICAC hearing.

Imagine a top executive sitting around a board table for years while choosing not to disclose an ongoing relationship with a more junior colleague? In much of corporate Australia, it wouldn’t fly. But after two weeks and a day of public hearings, there was no “smoking gun” to suggest Berejiklian engaged in what the general public would imagine when thinking of “corruption”.

Potential breaches of the ministerial code of conduct and a failure to report suspicions of corrupt conduct aren’t quite the same as taking bribes or hiding bags full of banned cash donations.

Berejiklian will be forced to wait until next year for any findings to be made about her. But if history is anything to go buy, it could be years until a report is handed down.

Asked this week whether increasing the ICAC’s funding, something which the agency has repeatedly called for, could allow them to move faster, Premier Perrottet kicked the can down the road.

There has long been talk of reforming the ICAC, including by adopting the Hong Kong model where matters are dealt with behind closed doors. But changes to the integrity agency have always been too politically dangerous for governments to touch.

One thing the public hearings uncovered was Berejiklian’s promise to “throw money” at the electorate vacated by her secret lover in the ensuing by-election.

But throwing money at marginal electorates to hold on to power is not illegal – the ICAC has said so itself.

“Allocating grants to particular electorates because they are marginal, or otherwise preferred by the government (also known as pork-barrelling), will not, absent other markers of misconduct, amount to corrupt conduct,” the ICAC said in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry last year.

“Politicians have a legitimate interest in their own election or re-election and are entitled to allow their political objectives to affect the decisions they make,” the submission read.

So Berejiklian’s admission that her government “threw money at seats in order to keep them” (which she said would not come as a surprise) was a damaging insight into the inner workings of government, but not unlawful.

In evidence to the ICAC, Berejiklian suggested spending $5.5m on a Wagga Wagga gun club was “perhaps” a way that the government could win back votes.

“The bush was on fire in terms of their attitude to the government,” she said when explaining the grant.

In seeking to defend her actions as treasurer and premier, Berejiklian gave the public a detailed look at how the (pork) sausage is made.

The Premier this week announced a review into how grants are administered, in part as a means to shake-off the idea that the government would feather its own nest with taxpayers’ money.

But on the same day as that review was announced, The Daily Telegraph revealed that 92 per cent of schools chosen for a renewable energy pilot scheme were in Coalition-held electorates.

Education Minister Sarah Mitchell said the schools were chosen, at arm’s-length, by the department – and were located in areas where the electricity grid was “constrained”.

This includes regional areas – electorates largely represented by the Nationals.

But after claims from the former premier that pork barrelling isn’t “illegal” and is commonplace in politics, even the perception of pork barrelling is damaging.

Perrottet told budget estimates on Thursday that pork barrelling “shouldn’t occur” and declared it “won’t be occurring” under his watch.

But that’s a promise easier made than kept.