The sister-in-law of former NSW premier Dominic Perrottet has faced sharp questioning at ICAC over more than $300,000 invoiced for Greyhound Racing NSW-related work, including shifting invoices, a large sign-on fee and a $43,500 bonus.<\/p>\n
Anita Perrottet told the commission she was paid through her company, Macquarie Consulting, for strategic and marketing advice given to Jeremy Greenwood through Beckington Group. <\/p>\n
But under repeated questioning, she struggled to explain what work she did, how the invoices were calculated, or why the amounts changed.<\/p>\n
Ms Perrottet is not a person of interest in the inquiry, but the commission is examining what role she may have played in the arrangement.<\/p>\n
Former premier Dominic Perrottet is not accused of any wrongdoing.<\/p>\n
The inquiry was told Ms Perrottet first invoiced Beckington in June 2021 for $150,000, covering 12 months of work at $10,000 a month plus a $30,000 sign-on fee. <\/p>\n
Pressed on whether she had any records to support the work she did, Ms Perrottet conceded she didn\u2019t \u201chave any physical evidence\u201d. <\/p>\n
She agreed there were no meeting notes, no reports, and no research or tasks she could point to for those months.<\/p>\n
Counsel assisting Peggy Dwyer SC also questioned the sign-on fee. <\/p>\n
Asked what the $30,000 was for, Ms Perrottet replied: \u201cI\u2019m not sure, I can\u2019t remember the conversations around it.\u201d <\/p>\n
Asked if she had any memory of the basis for it, she answered: \u201cNo.\u201d<\/p>\n
The hearing was told that despite issuing a $150,000 invoice, Ms Perrottet did not appear to be paid in one lump sum. <\/p>\n
Instead, money arrived in several instalments, including $71,500 and two payments of $49,500. <\/p>\n
Shown the figures, she accepted \u201cthe figures don\u2019t match\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cI can\u2019t speak to why money was deposited that way that it was,\u201d she told the commission.<\/p>\n
The commission then examined a second set of invoices sent a month later, which appeared to replace the first. <\/p>\n
In those invoices, the sign-on fee had fallen from $30,000 to $20,000, while the monthly retainer rose from $10,000 to $15,000. <\/p>\n
Some dates were duplicated and one invoice appeared to charge the same months twice.<\/p>\n
Asked why the invoices had changed, Ms Perrottet repeatedly gave the same explanation.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe obviously had a conversation about it. I just can\u2019t remember,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
That answer came up again and again as counsel assisting took her through the invoices. <\/p>\n
\u201cI remember having these conversations,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n
\u201cAbsolutely do but I\u2019m not going to speculate and create words that I may or may not have said so I cannot recall word for word what I said.\u201d<\/p>\n
The hearing also focused on the role of her husband, Charles Perrottet, in sending invoices for her company. <\/p>\n
One June 2021 email attaching the $150,000 invoice ended with the sign-off \u201ccheers, Charles\u201d. <\/p>\n
Another exchange showed Charles Perrottet texting Beckington director Christian Ellis about whether the invoice had been received. <\/p>\n
A later exchange appeared to show Mr Ellis setting out how the invoices should be restructured before an updated version was sent.<\/p>\n
Asked why her husband was involved in invoicing for work she said she performed, Ms Perrottet replied he would have done it \u201cat my request\u201d but had no memory of asking him to send the invoice.<\/p>\n
The commission also examined a later invoice from January 2022 that included a bonus of $43,500 on top of monthly fees. Asked how that came about, Ms Perrottet replied: \u201cI do remember having a conversation with him and him telling me that he\u2019d like to pay me a bonus. He\u2019s really happy with all the work I\u2019m doing.\u201d<\/p>\n
But when pressed on whether she actually remembered that conversation, she later answered: \u201cI don\u2019t recall.\u201d<\/p>\n
Across her evidence, Ms Perrottet maintained she had done legitimate work. \u201cI was doing work,\u201d she told the inquiry. She rejected a suggestion that the billing \u201chad nothing to do with any work you were doing\u201d, replying: \u201cThat is incorrect.\u201d<\/p>\n
Asked what justified the payments, which records show totalled $313,500 from Beckington, Ms Perrottet insisted she gave \u201clots of advice\u201d. <\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t recall all of it, but I did give lots of strategic marketing advice to Jeremy.\u201d<\/p>\n
In one of the strongest exchanges of the day, Ms Dwyer suggested Ms Perrottet was lying to protect Charles Perrottet. <\/p>\n
\u201cCan I suggest to you, you have been put in an impossible situation because you are being asked to lie under oath to cover for your husband,\u201d Ms Dwyer said. <\/p>\n
\u201cI reject that, I\u2019m not lying,\u201d Ms Perrottet replied.<\/p>\n