Spin campaign runs out of puff … Demonstration of the compelling need for ICAC … Cornered by the evidence … Terror of the tapes … Daryl’s key to the front door … Fresh interpretation of the ministerial code … The need for secrecy … Artemus Jones has been following the ICAC hearings 

It seems inevitable that ICAC will make adverse findings of some kind against Berejiklian – and, on the evidence, so it should. 

This has appeared likely ever since she appeared before ICAC in October last year, and was compelled to disclose for the first time her secret relationship with disgraced former Liberal MP for Wagga, Daryl Maguire.

It is this curious relationship that is at the heart ICAC’s inquiry into the former Premier – and has led to her downfall.

Berejiklian remained as premier for a year following her initial appearance at ICAC, in large part because of the very effective pro-Gladys narrative spun endlessly in the media, especially by Channel 9 and the ABC. 

Berejiklian actively fostered this false narrative, by participating in tame interviews, refusing to answer questions at press conferences, and insisting that she had “always acted with the highest degree of integrity”. 

This misleading narrative ignored or misstated pertinent facts – and portrayed Berejiklian as the innocent, hopelessly naive female victim of a poor choice of boyfriend.

This narrative was also embraced by a few less astute commentators in the Murdoch press and at Sky News – including Chris Merritt and Alan Jones – in order to beef up their flagging, and now surely completely discredited, campaign to abolish ICAC.

If ever there was a compelling argument for the existence of a powerful investigative body like ICAC, it is the Berejiklian inquiry itself.

Without ICAC, voters in NSW would have had no idea how Berejiklian, as treasurer and then premier, actually conducted herself for over five years.

It’s instructive to compare the evidence disclosed over the past week with the self-serving inquiry established by the Andrews government in Victoria late last year into the second wave COVID-19 outbreak, that caused over 800 deaths.

Berejiklian’s demise came about because she placed her political ambition above the duty that she owed to the people of NSW – and she did this by deceiving her political colleagues and the electorate for years.

The evidence led recently at the ICAC hearings make this clear.

Maguire’s evidence was particularly damaging. No wonder Berejiklian’s counsel, Sophie Callan SC, made an application – rejected by Commissioner Ruth McColl – for his evidence to be taken in private. Berejiklian has always been a great fan of secrecy. 

Faced with this overwhelming accumulation of damning evidence, Berejiklian found herself in a difficult position when she commenced her public appearance on Friday (Oct. 29).

Even so, the manner in which she gave evidence only made things worse for her. 

She was an abysmal witness – she refused to answer questions directly; claimed that she did not understand questions; constantly made speeches about her supposed integrity; and refused to concede that she had ever acted improperly. 

Objecting to perfectly legitimate questions on the basis that she found them “offensive” did not assist her cause.  

On six occasions on Friday, Berejiklian was directed by Commissioner McColl to cease making speeches and answer the questions put to her by counsel assisting.

Berejiklian often gave untenable answers – that directly conflicted with documentary evidence.

For example, she denied that she regarded Maguire as a member of her “family” – even though in a text she had told him “but you are my family”.

Even after listening to two telephone intercepts, in which she told Maguire that she would “fix up” his application for $170 million in funds for a hospital in his electorate and then, two hours later, that she had obtained the funds “in five minutes”  – because the then Treasurer “just does what I ask him him to do” – she steadfastly maintained that Maguire had “exactly the same” access to her as other back benchers.

And how many other backbenchers had a key to her house, or went on holidays with her?

Berejiklian’s repeated denials that she afforded Maguire preferential treatment, cannot be reconciled with the evidence – including Maguire’s own testimony.

Berejiklian’s evidence in relation to the Ministerial Code of Conduct was simply embarrassing.

Berejiklian accepted Maguire’s characterisation of their relationship as “a close personal” one – she herself described him as one of her “love circle” – but adamantly refused to accept that she should have disclosed the relationship. 

In fact, she testified that she “never turned her mind” to the issue of making a disclosure.

Berejiklian’s position appeared to be that so long as she believed that she was acting with “the highest degree of integrity” – as she climbed she always did – then no issue of a conflict of interest could possibly arise.  

This is a novel interpretation of the Ministerial Code – but it should come as no surprise. After all, it was Berejiklian who, last year, said that there was nothing wrong with pork-barrelling, because it was not illegal.

Berejiklian’s evidence on the disclosure issue simply beggars belief – and it is on this issue that she is at most risk of an adverse finding from ICAC.

Things did not get any better for Berejiklian on Monday (Nov. 1). 

She refused to directly answer questions, was evasive, gave evidence inconsistent with the documentary record, and argued with counsel assisting and Commissioner McColl. 

In fact, Berejiklian’s performance in the witness box has been so extraordinary that it may well cause ICAC to give consideration to making findings that she gave false and misleading evidence – an offence that can attract a prison sentence.

Why then did Berejiklian and McGuire keep their relationship a closely guarded secret for years?

Forget about the Berejiklian media campaign and the explanation that she is a “very private person”. That is pure spin. 

There is only one rational explanation for the secrecy over five years – her naked political ambition.

Maguire was very poorly regarded within the NSW Liberal Party well before his demise in July 2018 – Premier Baird, for example, refused to allow him into his office. 

Berejiklian would never have been made treasurer by Baird in April 2015, let alone have become premier in January 2017, if her political colleagues had been aware of her relationship with Maguire.

Berejiklian, who was very ambitious, knew this – as did Maguire – and that is why they both conspired to keep their liaison the best – kept secret in NSW political history.

This allowed Berejiklian to become treasurer and later the premier of NSW, after which, in gratitude, she was in a position, in her own words, to “throw money at Wagga”.

Berejiklian’s political ambition also explains why she did not make a report pursuant to s.11 of the ICAC Act  – which obliges ministers to report  suspected corrupt conduct to ICAC. Making a report would have revealed the existence of her secret relationship with Maguire.

Berejiklian’s political ambition also explains the strange episode in July 2018 when she told her chief of staff, who was a personal friend, that her relationship with Maguire had ended some time ago. 

If her chief of staff had known that Berejiklian was still involved with Maguire – as was the case – it is clear from her evidence that she would have sought advice as to whether a Ministerial Code of Conduct disclosure needed to be made.

Yet Berejiklian could not permit this to happen – especially now that Maguire had just resigned from parliament in disgrace. In fact, a telephone intercept records Berejiklian telling Maguire at this time “do the right thing” – that is, keep our secret – “or you will kill me”.  

So Berejiklian lied to her closest adviser.  

It is difficult to predict what Berejiklian’s fate is likely to be.

Her political career is already at an end – notwithstanding that a few weeks ago her supporters were ludicrously suggesting in the media that she might run for Tony Abbott’s former federal seat sometime down the track. 

Premier Nick Greiner was found guilty of corruption by ICAC thirty years ago and he went on, after resigning as premier and from parliament, to have a very successful post-politics career.

Greiner’s situation was, however, very different from Berejiklian’s.  

Opinions legitimately differed as to the propriety of Greiner’s actions. The finding of corruption made against him by ICAC was overturned by the courts; he did not deceive his political colleagues for years in order to advance his political career; he did not personally intervene to fund dubious projects; and Greiner did not defend himself by telling bare-faced lies.

Nevertheless, Berejiklian still has a measure of public support – thanks to her continuing, although now somewhat flagging, exculpatory media campaign. 

Ultimately, Berejiklian’s fate will turn on precisely what adverse findings ICAC makes in relation to her – but, whatever happens, there can be little doubt that she is the architect of her own downfall.