ICAC’s Berejiklian hearings an unedifying show trial

Two powerful cultures, legal and political, clashed when former NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian took the stand at the Independent Commission Against Corruption last week and on Monday. The outcome did the participants little credit. But like the ICAC investigations that finished the careers of two former Liberal premiers, Barry O’Farrell and Nick Greiner, ICAC’s founder, the hearings raised serious questions about ICAC’s role. Time will tell what the commission finds in relation to Ms Berejiklian. It is investigating whether between 2012 and 2018 she engaged in conduct that “constituted or involved a breach of public trust by exercising public functions in circumstances where she was in a position of conflict between her public duties and her private interest as a person who was in a personal relationship’’ with then NSW Liberal MP Daryl Maguire.

Much of Ms Berejiklian’s testimony was not her finest hour. She was prepared to reluctantly acknowledge the importance to her of the odd-ball relationship once it was exposed, while on the other hand insisting it was in effect so meaningless as to not warrant declaration. This inherent absurdity, albeit understandable given her private nature, left her squirming in the ICAC hearings and did some of her evidence no credit. It was also not ICAC’s finest hour either. Airing intensely personal conversations was needlessly intrusive, even voyeuristic, causing unnecessary humiliation to a decent, honest human being. The hearings smacked of an unnecessary show trial. Some of the questioning was supercilious and sneering. More importantly, much of it missed the essential point of how politics operates in all its messy democratic glory. Politicians are elected to decide how to spend taxpayer money to fund programs, build hospitals and rail lines and recital halls to provide for the public - and win elections. If voters don’t approve. Voters kick them out. When there is no hint of corruption, it should not be up to an impertinent ICAC commissioner to pass judgment on politics, as base as it can be.

While Ms Berejiklian’s relationship with Mr Maguire was confusing, relationships between MPs, many of whom grew up together, are complex. What declaration should be made by a Premier of her relationship with a powerful factional boss, or the colleagues whose partyroom vote determines her future? Are those relationships less important or prone to conflict than the one Ms Berejiklian had with Mr Maguire? One could make the case that every minister in cabinet, when deciding on local projects to the political benefit of MPs, could excuse themselves from deliberation.

Mr Maguire, like all energetic local members, lobbied hard for funding for the Australian Clay Target Association in 2016-17 and the Riverina Conservatorium of Music in Wagga Wagga in 2018. Ms Berejikian clearly had absolutely no clue her friend was involved in other questionable activities, and believed he was always operating by the rules. She was caught on a bugged call telling him to always behave honestly, openly and above board, and he re-assured her. Regardless of their relationship, it is up to voters , not ICAC, to judge if that money was well spent in Wagga.

ICAC could have reprimanded Ms Berejiklian for foolishly not declaring a relationship with a bloke who, unbeknown to her, was dodgy. They have gone too far in forcing her from office, and then publicly shaming and humiliating her. That’s what elections are for, and that’s the role of voters.