The most remarkable thing about the revelation of Gladys Berejiklian’s love life was that it was remarkable at all.
It is quite incredible that every person in the Macquarie Street bubble – government, opposition, staff, journalists, lobbyists, innocent bystanders – was completely oblivious to the fact that once the day’s work was over, the premier and her paramour would regularly go off for a bit of bonking in the background.
The New South Wales parliament is a seething cesspit of rumour and gossip, constantly skimmed in the hope of finding even a breath of scandal that can provide material for political advantage or just to make a good story in the dining room or the bar.
Secrecy is a non-starter, discretion unheard of. And yet apparently there was not even a hint that this sexiest of yarns was all but being hand-delivered to the hundreds who walked past it every day.
And while the press gallery was uninterested, others at least had a suspicion that something was going on. In Daryl Maguire’s electorate of Wagga Wagga some of his constituents speculated that their local member might be getting a bit on the side during his trips to Sydney, although they never dreamt he was going all the way to the top, and how intense it had become.
This was not a one night stand, a quick grab at a bit of rough trade after a hard day at the office, it was, as Berejiklian and the Independent Commission Against Corruption agreed to call it, a close personal relationship – but not an intimate one, not a partnership. Because that would have embroiled the premier in her own code of conduct. Even there she was being watchful and cautious.
But obviously not cautious enough once the two of them got together in what they hoped was privacy. While the media missed the long-standing affair for more than five years, the ICAC uncovered it with speed and efficiency: Berejiklian was not only raunchy but rash, not only embracing Daryl Maguire’s body, but tolerating, if not encouraging, his highly questionable morals.
And as no one knew – or at least wanted to know – there was no one to warn her that she was walking the finest of lines between her personal and public life. She was aware – she must have been aware – that her lover was a chancer and a wide guy long before he was sprung by the Commission. But she chose to ignore the reality, even after it became devastatingly public.
Such was her self assurance – her ego, her arrogance – that she believed that she could remain aloof from his shenanigans, although he constantly paraded them in front of her. Whatever she precisely meant by the disclaimer “I don’t need to know about that bit” it could hardly be taken as a declaration of Maguire’s probity and innocence.
And this is where she fails the pub test. No one is accusing her of anything more than insouciance – there is no suggestion that she got herself further involved than listening to his delusional boasting. But she could have, and should have, stopped him. Even if she was unwilling to report him to the ICAC, encouraging him – continuing the close personal relationship – was simply unacceptable.
And it is clear that Maguire thought there was still potential profit in keeping her on the hook – introducing her to shysters and spivs, handing out her private contacts to his clients, trying to pique her interest in his dodgy enterprises. And the besotted premier never told him to just shut up and piss off.
Berejiklian is a successful politician, a competent premier; Scott Morrison called her his gold standard, which is probably fair enough given the bin full of cardboard cutouts he has to work with in his own ministry. But she is not Saint Gladys, some kind of immaculate conception, as her over-the-top supporters are now trying to portray her.
She has stuffed up, and not just in her choice of lovers. Her political judgement has been frankly appalling. And worse, she is utterly unrepentant. A cursory apology, a brief expression of regret – but no admission that she has actually done anything wrong or that there is a need for restraint and reform.
So presumably there won’t be any. She has no intention of resigning and her Liberal colleagues are too cowered to do anything more than mumble in backrooms. Maguire will bluster his way through the ICAC and Berejiklian will bluster her way through the parliament. And the long-suffering public will wonder anew why there always seem to be different rules, different standards, between the elite and the rest of us.
The smarties don’t take the law seriously – it is a game to be played with lawyers and loopholes, the aim of which is to win at all costs, none of the namby pamby nonsense of waiting for his captain to smite contestants on the shoulder and remind them to play up, play up and play the game.
Maguire was blatantly corrupt and he knew it – the excruciating details being teased out at the ICAC make that horribly clear. But he had no compunction in pushing past the limits –who needs ethics co when you have protection at the highest level of government. Maguire was quite literally in bed with the premier. From his perspective, that made him invulnerable.
And while Berejiklian was determined to keep herself at arm’s length, to turn a blind eye, she could not avoid being drawn into what is delicately called a climate conducive to corruption. Whether she admits it or not, she was irrevocably entangled in the net. Maguire and his croneys obviously believed that if they pushed hard enough, favours would fall their way.
As far as we know, they didn’t. And thanks to ICAC, there is no risk of them doing so. ICAC does not and should not make and enforce laws; that is for the elcted politicians. Its role is to expose corruption, and in this case it has been spectacularly successful.
Tough on Gladys Berejiklian, whose reputation – if not her career – has suffered collateral damage. But undeniably in the public interest. Which is why Scott Morrison and his coterie are so unwilling to allow any such body within arms length of the federal government. The national interest seldom coincides with their own.
Mungo MacCallum is a veteran political journalist and commentator. His books include Run Johnny Run, Poll Dancing, and Punch and Judy.
mungomccallum@staging-johnmenadue.kinsta.cloud
Comments
15 responses to “Gladys’ arrogance paves the way for Federal ICAC”
“A “competent” premier, Mungo.? I think not!.
Fumbled council amalgamations, westconnex riding over the rights of locals, that tram thing bumbling its way through Sydney, a stadium, Parramatta swimming pool, trees along Anzac Parade, residents on the South Coast still camping out after the fires, shoddy developers running amok, the GPO sale, and now the cash for councils scandals. She has been a very expensive disaster.
I must have missed the connection between the headline and the article. Just where is the Federal connection? The article seems to suggest the NSW ICAC is doing an admirable job.
“she is utterly unrepentant…” that is the first and classic mark of a liberal.
Liberal, not liberal.
How could the press gallery, or any journalists for that matter, not have known about the relationship which seems to have lasted four years? One of Glad’s political enemies – and don’t tell me she hasn’t got any – must have found out; why would they not have whispered it on to someone? Of course they would, and it was just hushed up. Like Smirko’s trip to Hawaii was, by agreement, at first. When it’s Labor, everything is ‘fair game’.
Daryl Maguire ticks all the boxes of what the Liberal Party usually can’t wait to tarnish Labor with.
He ran a service from his government office to facilitate visas for MAINLAND Chinese visitors and migrants. He also organized meetings with politicians and important Australian contacts for MAINLAND Chinese business interests. Somehow nobody noticed this for many years, not even the premier. And of course are we to believe none of these people would have had links to the CCP, the claim the Liberals charge everyone else with?
This during the period Morrison and (later) Dutton were ministers for immigration. Funny that. These two who love to be castigating of anything China does.
Gladys’ relationship with Daryl only ended in 2018.
Could you imagine the furor that would be coming out of the anti-Chinese federal Liberals and their sycophant mainstream Liberal Party media if this was a Labor politician?
Yet the federal government are as quiet as a mouse; we’ve heard nothing from Dutton or Morrison about this, and the MSM appear incapable of drawing the lines between the dots like they always do when it is a Labor politician. All that is on offer is a possible home affairs internal inquiry run by Pezzullo the yes man. Sounds convincing, what could possibly go wrong?
If it was Labor, could you imagine the headlines?
“LABOR PREMIER SLEEPING WITH CCP’s BEST FREIND”.
I can see it now on the front page of the Daily Tele and The Australian.
Compare this with the reaction to Shaoquett Moselmane with AFP and ASIO raids and the full media exposure planned in advance. And still no charges for any of those involved. Moselmane is not even a minister and he was never involved in any organised secret agency for the facilitation of mainland Chinese visas and potential connections with Australian business contacts.
And Gladys says she told Daryl not to tell her things she didn’t need to know about. Well if she didn’t want him to tell her, she must of suspected something he was up to was a bit dubious from start. And I haven’t even mentioned his other debt fixing business dealings on the side.
The premier in my view has no credibility no matter how much the press massage this one. As the spy world knows, and the undercover police world knows: if you sleep with the enemy then you risk becoming one of them. It’s a very high risk game.
Gladys should have exposed him from the start if she had any hint the was up to no good. But perhaps she is so used to working in a world of Daryl clones in the Liberal Party, that she simply didn’t notice it was anything out of the ordinary.
Great comment, George. The whole thrust of the Murdoch-Ninefax coverage of this is the ‘Poor Glad was dudded by this shyster user’ frame, and the populace are falling for it. You’re dead right in pointing out the hysteria that would be stoked up about a Labor coupling of the same ilk; well, we’ve already seen that level of hysteria in the Sam Dastyari shemozzle.
Well spotted George. Labor needs a Murdoch Press to spin those kinds of headlines. As US politics have taught us, it is all about power and money with the Conservatives. Truth, morality, a fair go etc are for school kids as far as they are concerned.
Gladys hoped for marriage over five+ years. Is it any wonder she walked by a lower standard and accepted it as “right”. That does not make it right just because she says so. But it does seem that her colleagues have lowered theirs. A standard is a standard especially when it is explained in detail in legislation..
Good to see that Mungo uses “immaculate conception” – perverse as it is relating to St Gladys – in the right context. Am I alone in thinking that politicians’ private morality is a matter for the public record? If a man / woman feels free to put aside their marriage vows or pout them to the test, why would we expect that they would hold more sacred their duty to the electorate or to the State!
The first paragraph sums up exactly the implausible lack of knowledge or awareness about this.
The bonking or not bonking is irrelevant in and of itself. Of course the poor things are allowed to have relationships and a private life.
The acknowledged intimate relationship is connected however to a web at the very least of cronyism, possibly highly illegal activities and abuse of power, misuse of inside information and connections that go to the very heart of government..There appear to be federal implications as well.. These are the issues that matter.
Maguire was the Liberal member for Wagga Wagga for nearly 20 years. He was Government Whip in Barry O’Farrell’s Government. He was a numbers man.
It’s crucial for the future of transparent and accountable government in the state that ICAC carry out this investigation and be allowed to make findings without fear or favour.
The wheels on the spin/propaganda machine that have been cranked up to divert, distract and divide the community about thiis dosen’t reassure me that a just and fair outcome will be achieved.
We do love our bit of porn, don’t we? I suggest that any sustained public interest in what Gladys Berejiklian may have done will be not be fueled by what she has done, but because she did it IN BED.
An amusing point, Hal, but I’m not sure it’s right. I honestly couldn’t give a stuff what Gladys did in bed, don’t need to know anything about that. What I am interested in is the perennial set of questions that do count: what did she know, when did she know it and what did she do about it? Being a Melburnian, I don’t really have an opinion on whether she should go – or, at least, not a relevant one – but as more emerges I am inclining that way.
You may be speaking for yourself and your kin and kind, Hal, but you are not doing so for me.
I find the purile interest which political pundits have in the sexual lives of our elected representatives highly distasteful: But then, I find all kinds of hypocrital, puritanical ‘shock and horror’ at the ‘goings-on’ of other people repulsive.
“Harper Valley PTA” all over.
It’s not about porn, but about hypocrisy. It’s not about what happened in bed, but about what didn’t happen at the office- fulfilling the legal obligation to report personal relationships. ….and all the subsequent lies by omission and to the media.