ICAC counsel ‘sorry’ Barry lost his job

THE man whose interrogation brought down the NSW premier says he never intended for Barry O’Farrell to lose his job.

Nick Di Girolamo said that he was not resposible for Barry O’Farrell’s downfall and that

THE man whose interrogation brought down the NSW premier says he never intended for Barry O’Farrell to lose his job and is sorry it happened.

Geoffrey Watson SC, the senior counsel assisting the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption, defended the questions he asked during hearings on Wednesday, as ICAC came under criticism that it should be scrutinising other, more corrupt, identities instead.

“I would say this: at a personal level, there is no way I wanted Mr O’Farrell to lose his job,’’ Mr Watson said yesterday. “I’m sorry it happened. Incidentally, there was no way it was planned and it certainly wasn’t an ambush.”

There has been condemnation of ICAC that it has claimed two Liberal premiers in Barry O’Farrell and Nick Greiner since its formation in 1989. Mr Watson said his questions during the inquiry were not loaded and he could not have envisaged this outcome.

The view inside ICAC is that its counsel had to ask about the $3000 gift to Mr O’Farrell and it was no different from $3000 in cash being left on the then premier’s doorstep.

Nick Di Girolamo, the former Australian Water Holdings chairman and long-term donor to the Liberal Party, had a different view yesterday.

He said he was not to blame for Mr O’Farrell’s downfall and said Mr Watson was responsible for grilling him about the 1959 bottle of Grange, costing $2978, that appeared in the AWH accounts with an entry reading, “Gift to Barry O’Farrell and wife’’.

“I didn’t decide to bring anyone down, especially not the premier,’’ Mr Di Girolamo said.

“I’m not the one who asked the questions. The last two days have been a total shock.”

Mr Di Girolamo hit back at speculation that he had decided to bring down the premier by producing the card thanking him for the wine, sent by Mr O’Farrell and his wife, Rosemary, but he said he was not able to comment on the circumstances in which the card was obtained by ICAC, as he was still giving evidence.

ICAC did not ask the accountants involved in signing the AWH expenses about the gift to Mr O’Farrell when they gave evidence on April 1 and again on April 8. Sources close to the case wondered whether ICAC was protecting Mr O’Farrell.

Shortly after the accountants’ ­appearance, when it was clear there were going to be no questions about the gift, The Aus­tralian learned that a bottle of Grange had been given to Mr O’Farrell by Mr Di Girolamo, and that it was not recorded in his pecuniary interest register.

It is not clear whether ICAC changed its strategy in the weeks separating the accountants’ appearance at the inquiry and Mr Di Girolamo’s on April 15.

The ICAC inquiry was adjourned this week.

A final report will be handed down later this year.