as to the applicant having made disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in circumstances where the relationship disclosed was that of an acquaintance or family member, in each case much less intense, immediate and relevant than that of her relationship with Mr Maguire. Those disclosures included ([11.427]):
11.427.1. In 2013, Ms Berejiklian declared an interest to Cabinet and abstained from discussions regarding the appointment of a particular individual to a government board 'due to attendance with [that individual] at functions'.
11.427.2. In 2017, Ms Berejiklian made a disclosure under the NSW Ministerial Code of Conduct to the effect that two of her cousins were then employed in the NSW public service.
11.427.3. In 2018, Ms Berejiklian made a declaration of interest to Cabinet in relation to a particular Liberal Party supporter in relation to a potential appointment of that person to a government advisory board.
11.427.4. In 2019, Ms Berejiklian declared to Cabinet that a particular person proposed to be appointed to a government board was 'known to [her]'.
142 The evidence was that the applicant was well aware of her obligation to disclose conflicts of interest and duty ([12.194]). In addition, the applicant gave a number of reasons for not having done so, thereby suggesting that she had considered those matters in deciding not to do so ([11.439]). As the Commission noted at [11.440], many of the factual premises underlying those "reasons" were contradicted by other evidence. Thus, it was open to the Commission to find that the applicant had turned her mind to the question of disclosure and "deliberately" and "consciously" determined not to do so, thereby preferring her private interest or benefit to her public obligation to disclosure the conflict.
- Conclusion to ground 2
143 There was evidentiary material capable of supporting each of the challenged findings (see [104] above), and the underlying findings and inferences on which they were based.
144 Accordingly, the "no evidence" ground of review is not made out.
Ground of review 3
145 This ground is:
Further or in the alternative to ground 1, the Commission made a material error of law in finding that Ms Berejiklian's non-pecuniary personal relationship with Mr Maguire was capable of amounting to a relevant private interest capable of giving rise to a conflict of interest on Ms Berejiklian's part (R [10.175])…
146 This ground is directed only to the first and third of the Commission's findings of "serious corrupt conduct", which relate to the applicant's participation as a Minister in decisions made concerning funding promised and or awarded to ACTA and RCM whilst in a position where her private interest "in maintaining or advancing her close personal
