‘Ugly bum’: Karl Stefanovic mocks Gladys Berejiklian’s secret ex-lover
Peter Dutton has slammed Gladys Berejiklian’s ex as “a bum” on breakfast TV, with host Karl Stefanovic following up with his own description.
Peter Dutton has slammed Gladys Berejiklian’s ex as “a bum” dismissing the findings of the corruption watchdog that she did anything wrong.
Speaking on the Today Show, Liberal leader Peter Dutton claimed that Daryl Maguire was “a bum.”
“She’s first-class and what you see in public is what you get in private as well,” he said.
“She’s just a very decent person. She chose a bum basically and he was a bad guy. I think that she has, you know, paid a big price for that. And her integrity is not in question. She’s not a corrupt person.
“And I think she should hold her head high. She had a bad relationship, as everybody does, and I hope that that’s not the defining moment for her because she’s a much better person and we all know that.”
Host Karl Stefanovic then interjected, “Not to kick a man when he’s down, not just a bum, an ugly bum.”
It comes amid reports that Ms Berejiklian is considering a legal challenge to corruption findings levelled against her – a claim she firmly rejects.
The corruption watchdog also published new phone tap evidence in the final report featuring the former NSW premier apologising to her lover after he told her that he was “the boss” in the relationship.
Speaking to Sharri Markson on Sky News on Thursday, Ms Berejiklian’s political ally and NSW’s former Treasurer Matt Kean said the watchdog had taken too long and failed to prove she had committed any crime.
“After two years, after millions of dollars, the ICAC has basically revealed to us that Gladys was in a secret relationship with a weirdo,” Mr Kean said.
He also lashed the length of the investigation that left Ms Berejiklian hanging for years.
“It took the High Court less time to hand down the Mabo case,’’ he said.
“It took them only about 58 days for them to hand down their judgment into the Chris Dawson murder case, which happened 30 years ago. I mean, let’s be serious.
“They’ve revealed that she had a secret relationship with a dodgy operator. And it shouldn’t take two years for that to have happened.”
Ms Berejiklian has left the door open for a legal challenge against the anti-corruption watchdog found she engaged in serious corrupt conduct but said that it did not believe she should be prosecuted.
The Australian newspaper reported on Thursday night that any form of appeal was likely to be led by barrister Bret Walker SC.
Ms Berejiklian declared her legal team was examining the report and that she had always worked in the public interest.
“Nothing in this report demonstrates otherwise,” she said.
The final report also outlined the reasons why the ICAC did not believe Ms Berejiklian should be prosecuted.
The Counsel Assisting accepted that there was a body of evidence independent of Ms Berejiklian’s own evidence that would likely be available in any criminal proceedings instituted against Ms Berejiklian for the offence of misconduct in public office.
“Counsel Assisting also submitted that whilst recklessness is a sufficient mental state to satisfy the element of ‘wilful misconduct’ for the purposes of making corrupt conduct findings, a real question arose as to whether recklessness would provide a sufficient foundation upon which to regard the alleged misconduct as being ‘so serious as to merit criminal punishment’ for the purposes of the final element of the offence of misconduct in public office,’’ the report states.
“They submitted that that was particularly so in circumstances in which the available evidence did not demonstrate that either Mr Maguire or Ms Berejiklian received any private financial benefit in connection with the exercise of official functions by Ms Berejiklian.
“Ultimately, the Commission is of the view that Ms Berejiklian’s conduct, while it constitutes or involves a substantial breach of the ministerial code, is not so serious that it could be demonstrated to merit criminal punishment.”
In those circumstances, the report states it is reasonably clear to the Commission that any advice from the DPP with respect to the matter would be that no prosecution should be commenced.