Gladys Berejiklian should have stepped down a year ago

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian announces her resignation last Friday. Picture: Jeremy Piper

It is understandable that Australians are shocked and disappointed by the resignation of Gladys Berejiklian as Premier of NSW. She was a hardworking and dedicated leader of Australia’s largest state, a daughter of migrants, a trailblazer for women in politics who brought a straight-talking, no-nonsense approach to managing the pandemic.

But the hard truth is that Berejiklian should have resigned a year ago. After her appearance in the witness box at the Independent Commission Against Corruption hearings in October last year, it became untenable for her to remain in office. The only surprise was that she managed to last this long. It was, ironically, only because of the pandemic that voters seemed to turn a blind eye to the ICAC revelations.

Berejiklian did not disclose her secret relationship with disgraced former MP Daryl Maguire – a man she professed to love and wanted to marry one day – as required under law. She did not notify the cabinet of a potential conflict of interest while discussing his business dealings. And she failed in her duty to report suspected corrupt conduct.

ICAC is not a star chamber or a kangaroo court running a witch-hunt to bring down its third Liberal premier. ICAC is simply doing its job. The anti-corruption body famously has got some things wrong but it has made no findings against Berejiklian, only announced that it is investigating her conduct.

Much of the media commentary, echoing public sentiment, shows little understanding of the legislation governing ICAC, the associated Ministerial Code of Conduct, how ICAC operates and how Berejiklian failed in her public responsibilities. This is about integrity in the exercise of public functions.

Nothing could be more serious. The notion that ICAC should have delayed a further public inquiry because it was not convenient in the middle of a pandemic is ludicrous. It is a farcical argument. In fact, it is vitally important that those in positions of power are always discharging their duties honourably and ethically. We cannot tolerate any slide in public standards.

It is utterly appalling that Berejiklian slammed ICAC in her resignation statement. This is the undermining of an independent body that is meant to guard against corruption in public life. It is not acceptable for a premier under investigation to lash out with criticism over how ICAC has exercised its duties.

To claim, as some in the media have done, that Berejiklian is the victim is ridiculous. This “unlucky in love” and “bad boyfriend” defence was propagated by Berejiklian, who won sympathy from radio shock jocks and gossip columnists. It was a clever strategy to win public pity. But her poor judgment is wholly to blame for her resignation.

In my column on this page last year (“Why can’t you see it, Gladys Berejiklian? Your position is untenable”, October 19, 2020), I argued Berejiklian had breached the ICAC Act and had no option but to resign. I identified three key areas where I believe she failed her public duties. First, Berejiklian had an obligation to disclose her five-year relationship with Maguire, which continued after he had left parliament in disgrace.

She claims it was a “close personal relationship” rather than an “intimate” one, even though she said she loved him and wanted to marry him. She did not characterise it as “intimate” because this would have meant she had breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

This code is a regulation that sits under the ICAC Act. It requires ministers to divulge the “pecuniary and other interests” of a “family member”, which is defined as “any other person with whom the minister is in an intimate personal relationship”. How on earth could Berejiklian say she acted with integrity but not reveal the Maguire relationship?

Second, Berejiklian did not inform the cabinet of a potential conflict of interest as a result of her relationship with Maguire. Nor did she inform the parliament of the relationship as could be required under the Code of Conduct for Members of the Legislative Assembly. If they married, Berejiklian stood to benefit from Maguire’s business dealings. ICAC has phone recordings of Maguire discussing his business dealings with Berejiklian, some of which concerned the new airport at Badgerys Creek. Maguire detailed the money he could make. She met his partners and clients. Maguire told ICAC he sought “guidance” and “reassurance” from Berejiklian.

And third, Berejiklian, like all public office holders, has a responsibility to report real or suspected corrupt conduct under section 11 of the ICAC Act. No proof is required, ICAC advises, and there should be no delay in reporting. In fact, not reporting suspected corrupt conduct could be a serious offence.

When Maguire told Berejiklian he could potentially make hundreds of thousands of dollars if land owned by Louise Waterhouse near the new airport was rezoned, she replied: “I don’t need to know about that bit.” How on earth can this be justified? She did not need to know it, but now she did know it and did not do anything about it.

These things were enough to warrant Berejiklian’s resignation even before ICAC announced fresh hearings and a wider scope of inquiry under Operation Keppel. ICAC is investigating grants to the Australian Clay Target Association and the Riverina Conservatorium of Music in Maguire’s former electorate. The full extent of this scandal is just unfolding.

I do not suggest that Berejiklian was personally corrupt or benefited materially in any way from Maguire’s dodgy dealings. But Berejiklian’s claim that she had “always acted with the highest level of integrity” does not stand up to scrutiny. We must demand the highest ethical standards from our politicians rather than find excuses for their failings.

Senior NSW Liberals told this column ICAC has been further investigating Berejiklian’s conduct since the start of the year and they expected her to be recalled as a witness. They anticipate much worse is to come.

ICAC does not usually conduct hearings unless it knows where they are headed. Those who defended the indefensible are likely to regret it.