The quick and quiet cracks as Connolly takes the stand at ICAC

The cracks appeared all at once. Seven months after being sacked as chief executive of the Parramatta Council, after nearly four weeks of public anti-corruption hearings dredging through years of messages and emails that showed her at her most unguarded, it took less than three hours for Gail Connolly to break down at the ICAC.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption had been looking at an exchange of text messages between Connolly and Roxanne Thornton, a friend, former colleague and fellow member of the “Pink Ladies” under investigation, when tears came and she asked for a break.

The tipping point was the commission’s apparent failure to redact phone numbers and addresses on the livestream, to which her barrister objected. The feed was cut, but it later turned out the objection was unfounded.

Until then, Connolly had appeared steely rather than brittle. When she walked down Castlereagh Street at 9.53am, she was flanked by a legal team conspicuous for their flashes of pink. Connolly, Thornton and a third member of the Pink Ladies group, Angela Jones-Blayney, are under investigation for alleged subversion of recruitment practices; Connolly is accused of a string of other inappropriate behaviours in her role, including terminating staff for reprisal action or to benefit herself and friends.

By 10am, everyone was gathered outside the doors of the hearing room. Chief Commissioner John Hatzistergos had warned the day before that he had a meeting and might run late, but the lawyers and the public gallery were shuffled in and settling down soon enough.

The longer delay, however, was caused by the City of Parramatta’s attempt to change solicitors and the commission went into private session. Connolly’s wait was over by 11.10am, as Counsel Assisting Joanna Davidson rolled through her CV and narrowed in on her appointment to the council. The ousted council boss testified that she arrived at a ridiculous situation and that Parramatta operated in a parallel universe.

When the line of inquiry turned to her pay, and negotiations for the role in the vicinity of $500,000, Connolly was more emphatic. Davidson asked whether she had an interest in maximising her total remuneration package; the reply was “absolutely”.

It was as lunch neared that the pressure racheted up, as Davidson focused on how Connolly wrote over Thornton’s electronic signature so her contract would be signed and witnessed in wet ink. Hatzistergos asked whether Connolly understood the point of signatures being witnessed, then more bluntly, “Was this signature actually witnessed?”

As the cl