A brother of former NSW premier Dominic Perrottet has told a corruption inquiry he knew fugitive property developer Jean Nassif wanted to build influence inside the Liberal Party.<\/p>\n
Charles Perrottet told the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption he tried to keep the developer onside for his own reasons. <\/p>\n
He said Mr Nassif often rang him directly to complain about his projects and figures including former minister David Elliott. <\/p>\n
\u201cI wanted to appease him. I humoured him at times because I had an ulterior motive to seek some information from him in regard to allegations that had been around,\u201d Charles Perrottet said in evidence on Friday. <\/p>\n
He also told the inquiry he helped chase unpaid Beckington invoices and gave Mr Nassif updates about activity inside the Liberal Party, while insisting \u201cwhat I said to Jean Nassif was very different to my actions in the party\u201d.<\/p>\n
The ICAC is investigating whether fugitive developer Mr Nassif made illegal donations to Liberal Party figures in return for help advancing his interests, including efforts to remove former building commissioner David Chandler from office and damage the political career of former minister David Elliott. <\/p>\n
Dominic Perrottet, Mr Elliott and Mr Chandler are not accused of any wrongdoing.<\/p>\n
Wife\u2019s second day of evidence<\/p>\n
Charles Perrottet\u2019s wife Alice earlier on Friday spend a second day in the witness box at the ICAC.<\/p>\n
She was pressed over nearly $661,000 paid into her company, disputed travel claims and a detailed email about Mr Nassif and Toplace as an ICAC corruption inquiry intensifies.<\/p>\n
Anita Perrottet returned to the witness box on Friday, while her husband Charles Perrottet began his evidence late in the day and will resume on Monday.<\/p>\n
Ms Perrottet first gave evidence on Wednesday when she was questioned about payments to her company, her business dealings and what she knew of her husband\u2019s political work.<\/p>\n
She is not a person of interest in the ICAC hearing.<\/p>\n
Money and records<\/p>\n
A major focus was the money paid into Ms Perrottet\u2019s company, Macquarie Consulting, from Beckington and JPG Advisory. <\/p>\n
Counsel assisting Peggy Dwyer SC told the inquiry the total amount received over about two and a half years was roughly $661,000, despite Ms Perrottet maintaining there was no written work product because her advice was verbal.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s an enormous amount of money to be paid for circumstances where you cannot produce a scrap of evidence in relation to work done,\u201d Ms Dwyer told her.<\/p>\n
Ms Perrottet stood by her evidence that the work was genuine and oral.<\/p>\n
\u2018The game is exposed\u2019<\/p>\n
Ms Perrottet was shown an email she purportedly sent to Jeremy Greenwood in March 2023 sharing documents relating to work for Greyhound Racing NSW, despite her earlier evidence that the work was entirely verbal.<\/p>\n
The email was sent after a parliamentary inquiry had begun examining the activities of Liberal Party figures, including Mr Greenwood and Charles Perrottet.<\/p>\n
The commission was told Ms Perrottet had also created a shared drive of Greyhound Racing NSW material.<\/p>\n
Ms Perrottet told the inquiry she could not remember creating the documents or what was in them.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat is a completely sham email suggesting an arrangement where you\u2019re swapping or sharing greyhound docs that did not exist, isn\u2019t it?\u201d Ms Dwyer said.<\/p>\n
Ms Perrottet replied: \u201cNo.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cOh, Mrs Perrottet, the game is exposed, isn\u2019t it? It is just completely ludicrous to maintain the position that you have, that this was a genuine business,\u201d Ms Dwyer said.<\/p>\n
Ms Perrottet responded: \u201cIt was a genuine business.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ms Dwyer then put to her that the evidence she had given \u201cis patently false\u201d.<\/p>\n
Ms Perrottet replied: \u201cI\u2019m sorry, I had forgotten about these. I don\u2019t remember.\u201d<\/p>\n
Texts on power<\/p>\n
A series of messages shown to ICAC placed Ms Perrottet squarely inside conversations about the Liberal Party\u2019s internal power struggles as Dominic Perrottet moved into the premiership. <\/p>\n
In one exchange, Charles Perrottet told his wife he had a \u201clong call with Dom\u201d and that his brother had thanked him \u201cfor everything, not just this weekend, but the last 20 years to get here\u201d. <\/p>\n
Later, after Ms Perrottet asked whether David Elliott would miss out on a ministry, Charles replied: \u201cI didn\u2019t ask \u2026 We execute the prick as soon as party room is over.\u201d <\/p>\n
Asked if there was any other way to read that message other than as a reference to Mr Elliott, Ms Perrottet told the inquiry she was not sure what it meant. <\/p>\n
David Elliott is not accused of wrongdoing.<\/p>\n
Travel claims questioned<\/p>\n
The inquiry then turned to flights, hotels, parking, Ubers and other costs claimed through Macquarie Consulting in late 2021 and early 2022. <\/p>\n
Ms Perrottet struggled to explain a series of Sydney expenses and accepted some may have been \u201can oversight\u201d or \u201can error\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf I came to Sydney and I recorded it like this, it would have been a combination of family and work,\u201d she told the commission.<\/p>\n
Ms Dwyer repeatedly put to her that some of the claimed Sydney expenses appeared to match Charles Perrottet\u2019s travel rather than her own, including dates when text messages showed he was in Sydney and she was in Melbourne. <\/p>\n
Ms Perrottet did not accept that her husband was claiming work expenses through her company.<\/p>\n
Toplace email revealed<\/p>\n
The inquiry also homed in on an October 2020 email sent from Ms Perrottet\u2019s Macquarie Consulting account to lobbying firm Premier National about a Toplace development in Rosebery. <\/p>\n
The email referred to owners wanting to \u201ccommence action against Jean for noncompliance due to not having the OC in place\u201d and set out detailed project and planning issues.<\/p>\n
Ms Dwyer pointed out that Ms Perrottet had previously told the inquiry she did not work for Toplace, did not work for Mr Nassif and did not know the project belonged to Toplace.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou\u2019ve told us up until this time, Mrs Perrottet, that you did not work for Toplace, you did not work for Jean Nassif, you did not know that this was a development owned by Toplace, and here I\u2019m showing you a detailed email where you are advocating in relation to Toplace and Jean Nassif,\u201d Ms Dwyer said.<\/p>\n
Lunch and politics<\/p>\n
Ms Perrottet was shown messages sent to her husband before the lunch, including one suggesting \u201cyou should look up a wine to buy and take on Saturday\u201d, along with another on the day referring to her being too sick to attend.<\/p>\n
Asked whether that refreshed her memory that the plan had been for her and Charles to attend lunch with the children at Mr Nassif\u2019s home, she replied: \u201cNo, I don\u2019t remember that at all.\u201d<\/p>\n
She was later shown photographs of her children playing at the home. <\/p>\n
Asked whether that prompted any memory that Charles and the children had been there, Ms Perrottet replied: \u201cNo, I\u2019m sorry.\u201d<\/p>\n
The inquiry was also shown a text exchange between Ms Perrottet and her husband that touched on Liberal Party branch politics. <\/p>\n
In one message, Charles Perrottet mentioned veteran conservative Liberal figure David Clarke and the Beecroft branch before adding, \u201cSorry that was for Christian.\u201d <\/p>\n
Ms Perrottet replied, \u201cYour other lover.\u201d In another, she wrote: \u201ctime to kill Clarke, isn\u2019t he like 305 years old?\u201d<\/p>\n
Ms Dwyer suggested the exchange showed Ms Perrottet did discuss her husband\u2019s political work with him. <\/p>\n
Ms Perrottet replied: \u201cI appreciate that from this text exchange it looks like that, but for me, it\u2019s one of probably hundreds of millions of text exchanges with my husband.\u201d<\/p>\n