Gladys Berejiklian Icac hears live updates: former prime minister shows up before second-day inquiry | Australia news

Robertson reminds Berejiklian that during her 52-minute phone call with Maguire prior to his Icac appearance, she has repeatedly insisted that she believed in him, trusted him and therefore did not believe he was involved in misdemeanors.

Was it not “exploded” when his later Icac appearance showed Berejiklian that he was lying, Robertson asks.

The former prime minister says again that she only thought Maguire had been caught in something unintentional and had connected with people involved in misdemeanors.

I certainly did not know anything, if I had, I would have reported something. What came to fruition on the 13th [July] was for public display.

Scott Robertson gets to the heart of this question line. Did you suspect Mr. Maguire had been involved in corrupt behavior, he asks.

Gladys Berejiklian:

She says she thought Maguire had been caught in something unintentional:

I did not let it pass him by that he was trapped in something he was not fully aware of … I never suspected him of being corrupt.

Given that Berejiklian removed him from his role and put him across and issued a public statement in which he said Maguire had “failed his voters”, she had not at least suspected that he was involved in corrupt behavior?

She says she knew he was under “a cloud” but said the Icac investigation, Operation Dasher, was still going to run its course.

Robertson asks Berejiklian if she should have told Icac everything she knew about Maguire at this point:

I had nothing to report. There was nothing I knew, nothing I remembered, nothing that I thought was relevant.

Robertson pushes Berejiklian about whether she thought Maguire had lied to her, following his presentation of evidence to Icac on 13 July 2018. Recall that before that hearing, Maguire had assured the Prime Minister that he had done nothing wrong.

Berejikliansk:

I kept tormenting my brain, firstly to what extent he had been truthful, and secondly to what extent the investigation would reveal anything further about his activities.

She says she was “overwhelmed by the shock and sadness of what had happened during the hearing because he had assured me that there was nothing to worry about and that he had done nothing wrong”:

I questioned everything. I questioned everything I could have known … I can not express how much of a shock it was to the system.

Berejiklian is now being asked her reaction to Maguire’s evidence at Icac on 13 July 2018. This evidence showed that Maguire was involved in a “money exercise” involving a member of the Canterbury City Council and property developers.

She is asked if the evidence “upset and shocked” her.

Berejiklian said it did.

Robertson suggests that it became clear from the hearing that Maguire had been closely associated with people involved in misdemeanors.

Berejiklian agrees:

Yes, that was my concern.

She said she was concerned that Maguire was in their “orbit”, but said she did not know how closely they were involved:

I was very worried about what might happen. I was not sure and I was very worried.

Did Berejiklian think Maguire had lied to her?

She replies that she thought something was “wrong” but that she was not sure what had happened. At least she realized he was “under a cloud”:

I was shocked at what had happened and I had assumed he was trapped in something, but I was not sure of the extent of it. From a public perspective, there were clearly questions that needed to be answered.

Berejiklian says she suspects Maguire simply complained about the presentation of the budget and the lack of a separate item for Wagga Wagga Hospital rather than the lack of actual money.

It was normal, she said, because MPs want to be able to demonstrate to their constituents that they are being represented.

We hear new evidence of the $ 170 million that Maguire sought for Wagga Wagga Hospital in 2018.

You may recall that in a wiretapped call from May 2018, Maguire had complained to Berejiklian about the lack of funding for the hospital, and Berejiklian had called Treasurer Dominic Perrottet to “fix it”.

The Commission now hears that the financing had already “been in play” and that a decision was taken to finance it a year in advance of that telephone call.

It is heard that the financing was already an item in the previous budget papers, long before the conversation with Maguire. It did not appear as a line item in the looming budget that Maguire complained about.

Berejiklian says:

The money was already set aside in the budget. But members of parliament like to see it as a separate post … the money was already there, that’s how it was presented.

She says there is “absolutely nothing unusual” about it.

In terms of dollars, they were already in the budget. No one on this planet could get that amount of money … I would never have been able to pick that amount out in five minutes. It’s just absurd. Absolutely absurd.

A very interesting exchange:

Berejiklian suggests she has had to listen to the entire 52-minute phone call between her and Maguire, in which he discusses a threatening Icac performance.

Robertson corrects her, says they have only heard “excerpts,” and kindly offers to play it all.

Berejiklian answers:

No, I think we’re heard enough, thank you, Mr Robertson.

McColl offers Berejiklian some water. The former premier rejects.

She is taken to another message from Maguire, which says:

Means I have more information and data than them [beaming face with smiling eyes emoji].

Robertson asks if that means Maguire has more information than “big brother” or what investigative agency they had discussed.

No, that’s definitely not my memory.

Ruth McColl asks if it struck her as “curious” that despite Maguire’s insistence that he did nothing wrong, he still wanted her to get a private phone.

Why did he want to change phone now, probably for some extra protection …?

Berejiklian assumed he was doing so for the sake of privacy.

I can not wonder what went through his head.

McColl:

I’m just asking if you’ve ever put two and two together?

Berejikliansk:

Was she not worried about Maguire’s proposal to get a private phone?

No not really, it’s a privacy issue. It’s not just him who suggested it to me.

She is taken to a further message where Berejiklian replied to Maguire and asked if “everything was OK?”.

Wasn’t she worried?

Berejikliansk:

I do not remember what I was thinking at the time.

Does that message not indicate that you are concerned about the suggestion that you should have a telephone?

Berejikliansk:

If I was so worried, I would have done it.

Icac discusses texts in which Daryl Maguire Narrator Gladys Berejiklian to download WeChat, the message service, which is encrypted.

In a message, Maguire tells her:

You must have a private telephone.

Scott Robertson asks if Berejiklian has any recollection of it.

She says she has not and did not get a private phone:

He may have said that to me, but so did other colleagues because I was someone who never had a separate phone.

Robertson asks if between her call with Maguire on July 5, 2018 (about his threatening Icac appearance) and his evidence from July 13, 2018, she asked her chief of staff Sarah Cruickshank for any advice on what to do.

Berejiklian said she did not.

She is taken to a comment on the call in which she asked Maguire if recordings of their conversations “would be a problem?”.

Robertson:

Did you end up wondering if ‘big brother’ or an investigative agency was listening to your calls with Mr Maguire?

Berejikliansk:

She said she had done nothing wrong and therefore had nothing to worry about. Maguire had assured her that he had not either, and she believed him:

I was very sure he was not doing anything wrong. And I was certainly convinced that I had done nothing wrong.

Berejiklian says she can “unequivocally” say she did not believe Maguire was involved in misdemeanors:

I did not assume any offense and I assumed that where he had private interests of any kind, they would be disclosed in the appropriate manner.

She adds:

My radar certainly did not go off, I was not worried.

Robertson mentions that she had a 52-minute phone call with Maguire about his threatening performance at Icac and asks:

Why is your radar not coming up in relation to this problem?

Berejiklian says again that she trusted Maguire and had known him for a long time:

I did not assume there was anything wrong because I had pressured him a number of times. It’s one I trusted. One my colleagues trusted.