ICAC Tests Claim That $661,000 in Consulting Fees Hid a Political Payout

Lobbyist Jeremy Greenwood told the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), the state's anti-corruption watchdog, on 16 September that his earlier evidence about Anita Perrottet was not false. He said her age as a mother had no bearing on advice she gave about youth vaping.

The inquiry, called Operation Rosny, is examining an allegation that Greenwood, former NSW Liberal MP Charles Perrottet and lobbyist Christian Ellis shared $2 million in payments from 2020 to 2023 from developer Jean Nassif or his company Toplace in exchange for political outcomes. Greenwood and Charles Perrottet have denied the payments were political donations The Guardian.

Wednesday's hearing focused on money paid to Anita Perrottet's company, Macquarie Consulting. Counsel assisting the inquiry, Peggy Dwyer SC, a lawyer appointed to test the evidence, questioned Greenwood about advice Anita Perrottet allegedly gave to two lobbying firms, Beckington and JPG Advisory. Beckington was controlled by Greenwood and Ellis, and JPG Advisory was controlled by Greenwood. Invoices totalling $660,999 were paid to Macquarie Consulting over two-and-a-half years.

Dwyer put to Greenwood that the $660,999 was in fact Charles Perrottet's share of money from Nassif. Anita Perrottet has told the watchdog the payments were for "strategic and marketing advice" she provided. Charles Perrottet has said the payments were "holistic," covering his own advice to Nassif on developments as well as his wife's work.

Greenwood had previously told the commission that Anita Perrottet provided a "mum's perspective" and that the commission holds no written evidence of her advice. He said she was first contracted by Beckington in 2020. He credited her with work that included possibly coining "zero unnecessary euthanasia" for greyhounds and advising on deterring youth vaping, including removing bubblegum flavours and regulation of the black market.

Dwyer told the commission that Anita Perrottet's children were around two and three when she provided the vaping advice. Greenwood rejected the relevance of that point. He said it was not relevant that her children were under five when she advised on vaping among minors.

The "zero unnecessary euthanasia" claim drew sustained scrutiny. The phrase appeared in the 2017 NSW greyhound industry reform panel recommendations, years before Anita Perrottet's contract began. Dwyer suggested Greenwood had given false evidence in attributing the coinage to her. Greenwood denied it.

The exchange grew tense. Presiding Commissioner Fabian Gleeson told Greenwood he was "not here to debate with counsel assisting" but to answer the question. Greenwood maintained his account and pointed to his own reading in the policy area. He said he had read a Philip Morris submission to a 2020 Senate inquiry on illicit tobacco regulation, and that Philip Morris was a client of his.

Nassif himself appeared before the commission by video from Beirut on Monday and Tuesday. He declared he was "not corrupt." His evidence forms part of the same factual matrix the commission is testing: whether funds originating with him or Toplace flowed through lobbying vehicles to political actors as reward for official acts.

Earlier hearings filled out the payment history now under challenge. Greenwood has said Anita Perrottet was engaged on a $10,000 monthly retainer to give a "mum's perspective" on vaping. Charles Perrottet has defended the scale of the consultancy, with past evidence canvassing a $150,000 yearly payment and an average of 16 hours a week. The commission has published full transcripts for Operation Rosny sittings in August and September, including sittings on 26 August, 28 August and 9 September.

The broader context here is the line between lobbying, consultancy and concealed political finance. Lobbying means paid work to influence government decisions. The commission is not required to prove that advice lacked value in a commercial sense. It is testing whether invoices for strategic advice documented an independent service or provided cover for distribution of funds from a developer seeking outcomes. That distinction turns on contemporaneous records, the specificity of the claimed work, and the plausibility of expertise invoked to justify payment.

In my view, the next phase to watch is how the commission weighs absence of paper against oral claims of value. Vaping policy, greyhound welfare language and tobacco regulation each leave extensive public trails. If claimed contributions cannot be located in those trails, the commission may draw inferences about purpose. Findings will matter beyond the individuals named, because they will signal how closely New South Wales polices family-linked consultancies attached to lobbying firms.