Former NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian at Monday's ICAC hearing (Image: ICAC)

Gladys Berejiklian might — like many of us along the way — have fallen for a dill, a big-talking smart-arse who stole her heart and then smashed it.

Or the former New South Wales premier might have engaged in the odd bit of pork-barrelling, giving millions of dollars to one electorate, held by her Liberal Party, over another.

Either way, the treatment being meted out to her daily by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) looks unfair, targeted and even a touch sexist.

Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt, and consider that Berejiklian is guilty of falling for a crafty fool, and keeping it a secret. Isn’t it possible, then, that her main crime is bad judgment? Falling for the wrong bloke, and not telling her girlfriends who might have seen through him? Not listening intently when he started on with his big talk about this scheme and that scheme and how good he was? Giving him the benefit of the doubt, as she said yesterday?

Thinking of the best in people — particularly someone you love — is not a crime. Turning a deaf ear from time to time — even to a partner you love — is part-and-parcel of most relationships. And if this is Berejiklian’s big sin, the self-judgment she’s probably delivering each morning in front of the mirror will be more brutal than anything ICAC can hand down.

So let’s consider that her failings are less personal and more directed at helping deliver $35.5 million in projects to her former boyfriend’s electorate. Shock. Horror. Pork-barrelling? Who would have thought?

If she is guilty of that — directing money to an electorate that might help her secret boyfriend — she joins a long list of politicians from all parties in almost all countries who have favoured one electorate over another for 150 years. Indeed the use of the term “pork-barrelling” is said to date back as far as 1873.

But you don’t need to find a history book to see how common it is, particularly when there is an election in sight. Why would granting funds to a particular electorate in this case (irrespective of who held the seat or their relationship) be any different from the hundreds of millions of dollars poured into marginal electorates every federal election campaign? Why is it any different from the federal Coalition seats benefiting from $300 million in regional grants? In that case, Nationals Senate leader Bridget McKenzie dismissed concerns simply by saying that “decisions have to be made and — that’s how it goes’’. Is it? Should someone tell ICAC that? 

Or is what Berejiklian is being accused of any different, in real terms, from the federal Coalition’s promise, as the 2019 poll neared, to build new car parks across suburban train stations? Was that decision purely based on good policy? Or the lure of extra votes?

Labor’s not exempt either, and any analysis of electoral gifts — from air-conditioning in schools to new roads and sports centres — will show a bias towards seats held by the government of the day.

Is giving funds to your boyfriend’s electorate any worse than than giving it to an electorate so you stay in power? One post-2019 election analysis found that marginal seats received funding at a rate almost three-and-a-half times greater than safer seats. Wasn’t that to keep individuals from a particular party in power? What individuals? Who made those decisions? Did anyone benefit personally from them? Should they be put on a stand and grilled too?

When the sun sets on this latest inquiry, questions need to be asked about the performance of ICAC. It was set up in 1988 with three specific tasks: to protect the public interest, prevent breaches of public trust and guide the conduct of NSW public officials.

Across those three goals, its performance is patchy at best. And a waste of public money, at worst.

If ICAC has a smoking gun, it should fire it and Berejiklian should cop the full force of what it is able to recommend. But ridicule is not on the statute books as a punishment for either bad judgment or pork-barrelling, and so far it seems that’s the best ICAC has to offer.

Do you think the ICAC is a waste of taxpayers’ money? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say column. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.