ICAC: Gladys Berejiklian Tapes shoot holes in credibility of former premier

Buried in the trove of wire-tapped conversations between Gladys Berejiklian and Daryl Maguire are gems that shed an uncomfortable light on the clash of law and politics in NSW.

Former NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian appears before the ICAC inquiry in Sydney on Friday.

Buried in the trove of wire-tapped conversations between fallen premier Gladys Berejiklian and her then lover, Daryl Maguire, are gems that shed an uncomfortable light on the clash of law and politics in NSW.

It’s clear from Friday’s inquiry that Ms Berejiklian was keen to help her former boyfriend; equally clear there is nothing unusual in doing favours for Coalition backbenchers to keep country seats stocked with expensive projects.

Asked about Mr Maguire’s influence on the decision to support his push for a $5.5m grant to the Australian Clay Target Association, Ms Berejiklian was clear: “It could have been part of the consideration but the absolute consideration for me … was … the Orange by-election.”

But Ms Berejiklian was in hostile territory and ICAC’s redoubtable counsel assisting, Scott Robertson, was taking no prisoners. “Are you having some difficulty in understanding my questions?” he asked at one point.

Even Assistant Commissioner Ruth McColl, who has taken a back seat for most of the inquiry’s sittings, was getting exasperated with Ms Berejiklian’s failure to address questions about the obvious conflicts of interest arising from her secret relationship with Mr Maguire.

“Isn’t that the sort of thing, when you’re making decisions in relation to projects Mr Maguire would advocate for, it would at least cross your mind?” an incredulous Ms McColl asked, as Ms Berejiklian was questioned about her role in advancing another of Mr Maguire’s pet projects – $30m funding for the Riverina Conservatorium of Music.

The proposals were about the community, she responded, not something from which she would benefit personally.

“It was demonstrative of the deep emotional attachment you had to him, was it not, Ms Berejiklian?” Ms McColl asked.

“Oh absolutely, but I had no assurance it was reciprocated or that it was going to lead anywhere and that is the threshold question, with due respect, Commissioner.”

“I think we’ll decide the threshold question, Ms Berejiklian,” the Commissioner replied sharply.

At one point in the intercepted calls, she tells Mr Maguire she has secured $170m in government funding for a hospital project he’s championed, after speaking to then treasurer Dominic Perrottet. “I just spoke to Dom and I said ‘just put $140 (million) in the budget’, he goes ‘no worries’. He just does what I ask him to,” she says.

In another conversation, Ms Berejiklian says she has secured funding for the local hospital but that he should text “Brad” – believed to be Health Minister Brad Hazzard – for more money.

At her first ICAC appearance since resigning as premier, Ms Berejiklian denied Mr Maguire had any more access to her than anyone else. That argument stretched credibility even before ICAC played an intercepted conversation in which she told Mr Maguire: “I’ve now got you the $170m in five minutes.”

Ms Berejiklian couldn’t recall whether the hospital funding had actually been changed because of her call. But she would have acted in exactly the same way if any other colleague had made a similar approach, she said.

No one watching the ex-premier on Friday could be in any doubt she sincerely believes she has done nothing wrong. Once again we heard her telling Mr Maguire in intercepted an call: “I don’t want to know any more of that stuff.”

But this was not just about disclosing conflicts of interest.

ICAC is also investigating the former premier’s alleged active intervention in matters involving her then boyfriend. And whether she knew things about his business dealings she should have reported.

The evidence emerging on Friday was damning.

Mr Maguire told her he’d done a property deal around Badgerys Creek that could make him enough to pay off his house. “It didn’t cross your mind it was suspicious that an MP could expect to make $1.5m commission in a property deal?” Mr Robertson asked.

“I don’t even know if I was listening properly,” she said.

Even when Mr Maguire told her he’d been called before ICAC, she didn’t join the dots, she said. She trusted him when he said he’d done nothing wrong.

In at least one intercepted call, Mr Maguire tells her his phone is probably already tapped. “Is that going to be a problem?” she asks.

“Why? What have you done?”

“Nothing!” She exclaims.

It’s clear she believes that. The Commission seems to have a different view. So would many of those watching. And that was just day one.