What's Going On at the NSW Corruption Hearing Involving the Perrottet Family?
Anita Perrottet, the sister-in-law of former NSW premier Dominic Perrottet, told a corruption hearing on 26 August 2026 that hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to her were for "strategic and marketing advice." She denied a suggestion from the hearing's lead lawyer, Dr Peggy Dwyer SC, that she had been put in an "impossible situation" and lied under oath to protect her husband, Charles Perrottet. "I reject that. I'm not lying," she said The Guardian.
The hearing is part of an investigation called Operation Rosny, run by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption, or ICAC. ICAC is a government body that investigates corruption in public life. This inquiry is looking into whether, between 2020 and 2023, three men — Christian Ellis, Jeremy Greenwood, and Charles Perrottet — accepted political donations that are banned under NSW law. The donations allegedly came from Jean Nassif, a property developer who is currently a fugitive, and his company Toplace. The inquiry started on 27 July 2026 in Sydney and is expected to last eight weeks ICAC. ICAC is also examining whether a group within the Liberal Party called the Reformers used illegal donations to pay for signing up new party members The Guardian.
In NSW, there are strict laws about who can donate to political parties and how much. Property developers are banned from making political donations because of the risk that they might expect favourable decisions on planning or development in return. Breaking these laws is a criminal offence.
Dwyer told the inquiry that evidence would show Anita Perrottet acted as a "conduit" for payments totalling $661,000 — meaning the money may have flowed through her to reach someone else. Dwyer said this amount matched what would be Charles Perrottet's one-third share of $2 million that the three men reportedly expected to receive, split evenly between them The Guardian.
The financial details are complex. Anita Perrottet had worked in financial-sector communications and ran an alcohol delivery company called Deliver Me Drinks. In August 2020, she became the sole director and shareholder of a company called Macquarie Consulting. She said she gave verbal advice to two firms: Beckington, run by Ellis and Greenwood, and JPG Advisory, run by Greenwood. There was no written contract — only what she called a "flexible arrangement." Beckington paid her $10,000 a month for what she said was 15 to 20 hours of work per week. In total, Beckington paid her up to $333,500. A further $254,500 came from JPG Advisory for verbal advice in a single three-month period ending January 2022 The Guardian.
The way the money was paid drew attention. After the first year, Anita Perrottet was paid in three lump sums totalling $170,500. This was triggered by an invoice for $150,000 sent by her husband Charles, which included a $30,000 finder's fee — a payment for introducing parties to each other. In July 2021, Charles sent a message to Christian Ellis saying "just sent you back the updated invoices." Anita told the inquiry Charles would have done this at her request The Guardian.
Her account of the actual work she did raised more questions. She could recall only one client from her time at Beckington: Greyhound Racing NSW. She acknowledged she had never watched a greyhound race at the time she provided advice to that client The Guardian.
The broader context matters here for several reasons. This inquiry touches two sensitive political issues at once: whether the rules around political donations were broken, and whether a faction within the Liberal Party used illegal money to build its membership base. The Perrottet family name adds another layer of public interest, because Dominic Perrottet served as premier of NSW — the state's most senior political leader.
ICAC appears to be building a case that tests whether these payments were for real work or whether they were a way to move money to its actual recipients behind a layer of legitimate-looking transactions. Think of it like a shell game: the money appears to be paying for consulting services, but the question is whether those services were real or just a cover. The lack of written contracts, the fact that invoices were sent through Charles rather than Anita directly, the large sums concentrated into short periods, and the inability to name more than one client all form a pattern that the lead lawyer is asking the commissioner to consider. Anita Perrottet's defence is straightforward: the advice was real, it was given verbally, and she was paid at rates she considered fair.
What remains unresolved is whether the commissioner accepts Anita Perrottet's explanation or finds the combined weight of all these details more convincing — particularly the fact that $661,000 lines up exactly with Charles Perrottet's alleged one-third share of the $2 million. The inquiry still has several weeks of hearings to go.
