Gladys Berejiklian and Daryl Maguire (Images: AAP)

Not for the first time we find ourselves asking if NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian, former winner of the AFR’s “Woman who saved Australia” award, just has a predilection for bad boys — or is personally corrupt.

Since her sensational appearance before the Independent Commission Against Corruption last year (ICAC), she has asserted that “the premier was not under investigation nor was she an adversely affected person for the purpose of the [ICAC] investigation”.

Since then, ICAC has extended its investigation into matters relating to Berejiklian’s former secret boyfriend, then-MP Daryl Maguire, specifically in relation to the Australian Clay Target Association (ACTA). That organisation was the recipient in 2017 of a $5.5 million grant from the Regional Growth Environment and Tourism Fund to build a conference centre in Maguire’s electorate, which was overseen by the NSW treasurer — that is, Berejiklian.

Berejiklian has previously distanced herself from the grant approval process without directly addressing the question of whether she ever spoke with Maguire about it.

What has now come out, courtesy of digging by Greens MLC David Shoebridge, suggests something rather more involved. Apparently Maguire wrote to Berejiklian in January 2016 seeking funding for ACTA. She responded formally, thanking Maguire and pointing him to the sports minister who would respond for the government.

In December 2016 the Expenditure Review Committee, which Berejilklian chaired as treasurer, reserved funding for the ACTA grant. The next step was a detailed cost-benefit analysis, which must produce a costs-to-benefits ratio score of more than one. In April 2017 the Department of Industry gave the proposal a 0.88 score — a clear fail.  

By this time Berejiklian had become premier. In June of that year, a letter from Regional NSW (a section within the Department of Premier and Cabinet) to Infrastructure NSW requested that the ACTA grant application be reconsidered, noting that an updated business case had been provided by ACTA and assessed by the Investment Appraisal Unit “following a request by the premier”.

Later in June, the deputy secretary of Regional NSW emailed a senior staffer in Berejiklian’s office saying that he had been asked to follow up on the application “as the local member [Maguire] has asked”. Infrastructure NSW had advised that it was with the treasurer for signing and would then be issued. The deputy secretary concluded: “Just wanted you in the loop given premier’s interest.”

The ACTA proposal was reassessed in July 2017 and now got a score of 1.10, taking it over the threshold for approval. Glory be.

That is the critical sequence of events over an 18 month period from Maguire’s first formal request to Berejiklian for help, to the final approval of the grant. Maguire, as local MP, had obvious reasons for wanting the project funded. According to evidence given to ICAC, he also tried to get a small commission for himself for securing the money (there is no suggestion Berejiklian knew about this).

Throughout this period, Maguire and Berejiklian were in a relationship, the existence of which she did not disclose until 2020. She has maintained that, although her personal judgement in shacking up with Maguire was terrible, she was untouched by his graphic and serial corruption.

That was perhaps tenable in the absence of any direct evidence to the contrary, but now we have words on paper that raise very specific questions about a very specific deal.

A large grant of public money was given to a project which had clearly failed the test when conducted at arms’ length. The premier requested that the test be attempted again, and the evidence suggests she was taking particular interest in it. The test was passed, and the public money flowed, as the premier’s secret boyfriend had been seeking all along.

The conflict of interest is obvious. If she didn’t disclose it, that is scandalous.  Unless the documentary evidence is flat wrong (that is, the references in the correspondence to “the premier” were mistaken, because she actually knew nothing about any of it), then Berejiklian’s actions may have been a flagrant breach of the most basic standards of ministerial conduct.

As to whether it was corrupt, the ICAC Act defines corrupt conduct very widely. If Berejiklian did intervene in the ACTA grant process without disclosing her personal interest, then that becomes a very real question.

That is for ICAC to consider if it takes this matter on. Berejiklian’s response so far has been dismissive, telling the ABC’s Paul Farrell (who broke the story) that “firstly, the proposition you’re putting is absolutely ridiculous, and secondly, all proper processes were followed, and that’s all I’ll say on the matter thank you”.

When Farrell pressed the question again, the premier said, “I refer to my previous answer, and please respect this press conference”. 

Showing some respect to the people of NSW by answering the valid questions the premier is being asked would be nice.