ICAC inquiry: Berejiklian-Maguire relationship a ‘conflict of interest’

An inquiry into Gladys Berejiklian has opened with allegations she withheld knowledge about the corrupt conduct of her former boyfriend.

Former MP Daryl Maguire and former NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian

A corruption inquiry into Gladys Berejiklian has opened with a series of allegations levelled against the popular former leader, including that she deliberately withheld knowledge about the corrupt conduct of her former boyfriend, Daryl Maguire, and that she potentially encouraged his conduct by failing to act within her duties.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption will also seek to establish whether Ms Berejiklian breached the public trust by failing to disclose her relationship with Mr Maguire while he sought millions of dollars of funding for projects in his electorate, and while she allegedly assisted with advancing them.

In a live-streamed opening address, counsel assisting, Scott Robertson, said initial inquiries had focused on Mr Maguire but these were expanded to include Ms Berejiklian, given the significant public interest posed by the allegations she was facing.

The allegations appear to be based in part on evidence aired during last year’s public hearings, with Mr Robertson mentioning a conversation involving Mr Maguire’s discussion of a deal, and Ms Berejiklian’s response: “I don’t need to know about that bit.”

With ICAC criticised by some for taking too long to finalise its inquiry, Mr Robertson’s opening address made it clear that investigators had been busy over the 12 months since public hearings into Mr Maguire’s activities came to their conclusion.

Numerous section 22 orders have been issued to ministers and department secretaries, compelling them to produce confidential cabinet briefings, emails and other government submissions.

Gladys Berejiklian, right, is grilled by Scott Robertson during the ICAC hearing.

Numerous witnesses have been interviewed, including former premier Mike Baird, who will give evidence to ICAC on Wednesday, along with his former chief of staff Nigel Blunden.

Other witnesses scheduled to appear were named as deputy Liberal leader Stuart Ayres, who will give evidence on Friday, and former deputy premier John Barilaro, Ms Berejiklian and Mr Maguire, who will each give evidence next week, among others.

Mr Robertson revealed that Ms Berejiklian was interviewed in a private hearing on Saturday, September 18, about one week after the former premier cancelled her regular press briefings.

An excerpt of the examination, played during Mr Robertson’s opening address, depicted Ms Berejiklian in a darkened government boardroom seated alongside her barrister, Bret Walker SC.

Ms Berejiklian was asked repeatedly whether she harboured any suspicions of Mr Maguire’s corrupt conduct in mid-2018, when she demanded his resignation over revelations arising out of a separate ICAC inquiry implicating him in corrupt activities.

“I didn’t know, I couldn’t make any assumption at that stage. He was professing his innocence and saying it was a misunderstanding. But under the circumstances, given he was a parliamentary secretary, I thought it appropriate to ask him to stand aside until the matters were investigated,” she said.

“I’m not asking whether you were sure,” Mr Robertson replied. “What I’m asking is whether … you suspected that Mr Maguire had been engaged in corrupt conduct?”

“I didn’t know.”

“I’m not asking whether you knew,” Mr Robertson said, repeating his question.

“I didn’t know,” Ms Berejiklian said. “I was in shock. I didn’t know what to think. I didn’t have enough detail. I can’t remember what I thought at the time.”

After six attempts, Ms Berejiklian eventually responded that she did not hold any suspicions of Mr Maguire’s corrupt conduct at the time of his dismissal.

This suspicion of corruption will form one of ICAC’s three central lines of inquiry into Ms Berejiklian’s conduct; another will examine whether she ought to have declared her relationship with Mr Maguire, and whether, in not doing so, this amounted to a conflict of interest.

Mr Robertson said Mr Maguire had been a strong supporter of two funding projects advanced by organisations in his electorate — the Australian Clay Target Association and the Riverina Conservatorium of Music — and he had “vociferously advocated” for government support to fund them, including to Ms Berejiklian.

“We also expect the evidence to demonstrate that Ms Berejiklian made or participated in the making of decisions, and took other steps that advanced the building projects advocated for by Mr Maguire, but without disclosing to anyone in government that she was in a close personal relationship with Mr Maguire at the time she took those steps.”

 

The hearing heard that Ms Berejiklian was not averse to declaring potential conflicts of interests during her time as a minister, and had done so on four occasions between 2013 and 2018. This included one instance where she declared that two of her cousins were employed in the NSW public service, and another involving a Liberal Party supporter who was being considered for appointment to a government advisory board.

She has previously said she did not disclose her relationship with Mr Maguire because it was not of “sufficient status”; she also told a newspaper last year that she had some designs on marrying him.

The first witness to appear before the hearing was Michael Toohey, a director in the NSW Office of Sport and a seasoned public service official who, in 2016, had been tasked with progressing the ACTA’s funding application.

Mr Toohey said he identified numerous concerns with the request, including the business case, which was deficient, but he was also troubled by the sudden and unexplainable urgency attached to the application, and the need to expedite it ahead of usual government processes.

He said he would have “absolutely” viewed the project in a different light if he had known that Ms Berejiklian — then NSW treasurer — was in a relationship with Mr Maguire.

“I would have expressed my concerns through the executive structure and into the minister’s office to say I thought this was problematic,” Mr Toohey said. “And if that didn’t produce any results, and I think it would have, I would have relayed them with this agency. I can’t see how it’s anything but a conflict of interest.”

He said he first encountered the project on November 15, 2016, when he received an email from Paul Doorn, an executive director with the Office of Sport, who is due to give evidence on Tuesday.