BEREJIKLIAN: Yes I know.
116 This exchange was the subject of the question to the applicant and her answer recorded at [10.21]:
In a private examination during Operation Keppel's public inquiry into the Maguire allegation ('the First Public Inquiry'), Ms Berejiklian was asked whether this exchange was 'a fair understanding of your relationship at that point in time, that in the sense that, at least privately, it was Mr Maguire [who] was the leading party or the boss?' She replied:
Look, as you can appreciate, when you're the Premier of the state, it's very difficult in private relationships to make people feel that – he wanted, he, he wanted to feel equal in the relationship because of my position … To make him feel less insecure in a private capacity I'm talking now, not in a public capacity. In a private capacity, it's very personal … when you have a position of power, it's very difficult in a personal relationship to address that position of power, and that's what I was referring to. It's very personal and private. It's got nothing to do with work. It's actually making him feel that because I was the boss during the day, that I wouldn't necessarily be exercising that relationship in the private relationship. (Italics in original.)
117 In the light of this evidence, it was open to the Commission to make the findings made at [10.28]–[10.29], which include the finding accepting the submission of Counsel Assisting at [10.23]:
10.23. Nevertheless, Counsel Assisting submitted that the conversation highlighted Ms Berejiklian's concern about Mr Maguire's insecurity and her preparedness to seek to placate him in order to preserve their personal relationship. In this sense, Counsel Assisting contended the conversation related directly to how Ms Berejiklian interacted with Mr Maguire in the public sphere. In circumstances where Mr Maguire became aggrieved and insecure over a perceived social slight, Ms Berejiklian was on notice of a risk that Mr Maguire would suffer greater levels of insecurity and disquiet in the event that Ms Berejiklian did not support projects for which he was a strident advocate.
…
10.28. … in the Commission's view, the 14 February 2018 exchange between Ms Berejiklian and Mr Maguire is probative of the matters for which Counsel Assisting contend. The Commission accepts it is circumstantial evidence, but it is part of the mosaic of information before the Commission which must be carefully considered as part of its investigation of the Berejiklian allegations. It is, as Ms Berejiklian's submissions recognised, relevant to her exercise of her official functions, albeit she argued the relevance was tenuous.
10.29. … While it may not have been, as Ms Berejiklian submitted, her real view of the dynamic between them, her concern to address what she perceived as Mr Maguire's insecurities can, as a matter of human experience, be expected to have manifested itself in a continuing desire to assuage his feelings and support him to the best of her ability. That would include supporting him bringing to fruition two Wagga Wagga projects for which he was a fervent advocate. (Emphasis added.)
- Mr Maguire's "lobbying" to the applicant
118 There was evidence that Mr Maguire pressed the applicant to exercise her public functions in particular ways to support his causes, and that the applicant responded accordingly. In doing so Mr Maguire had direct, immediate and informal means of communicating with the applicant and did so without any suggestion that there was some "boundary" between their personal or private lives and their interactions concerning the exercise by the applicant of her public functions.
119 For example, the applicant intervened with Treasury to support funding for the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital on 16 May 2018 after Mr Maguire had been told that "[his] 170 million" dollar funding request was "not a line item". As he described it to the applicant
