ICAC inquiry hears phone taps of Jean Nassif boasting of influence over NSW Liberals
Phone tap recordings played at the New South Wales corruption watchdog show fugitive property developer Jean Nassif boasting about his influence over the Liberal Party.
Quick Look
ICAC inquiry hears phone taps of fugitive property developer Jean Nassif boasting of influence over the NSW Liberal Party and calling former premier Dominic Perrottet his 'boy'.
AI-generated summary
Why It Matters
The NSW ICAC is investigating whether donations linked to property developer Jean Nassif were exchanged for political favours.
Phone tap recordings played at the New South Wales corruption watchdog show fugitive property developer Jean Nassif boasting about his influence over the Liberal Party, and describing former premier Dominic Perrottet as his "boy".
The NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) is investigating whether donations linked to Mr Nassif were exchanged for political favours, including removing former NSW building commissioner David Chandler and stopping him from investigating his developments.
In a call with a family member shortly before Dominic Perrottet became premier, Mr Nassif referred to him as his "boy," later claiming he could secure his preferred minister and use the position to "step on f***ing David Chandler and get rid of him".
The recording was played during Charles Perrottet's fifth day of evidence examining whether he used his Liberal Party connections to advance Mr Nassif's business interests.
His brother, Dominic Perrottet, has not been accused of wrongdoing and referred the allegations to ICAC in 2022.
'I wouldn't have called Dom'
The inquiry heard Mr Nassif also sought Charles Perrottet's help in pressuring his brother, who was treasurer at the time, over the building commissioner.
In a July 2021 text to his friend and person of interest, Christian Ellis, Charles Perrottet said Mr Nassif asked him to get Dominic Perrottet to tell Mr Chandler to issue an occupation certificate to one of his developments, "or he'll have problems".
Mr Perrottet told Mr Ellis that such a request was "extremely ICAC worthy".
Under questioning by counsel assisting Peggy Dwyer SC, Mr Perrottet said the request sounded "like a threat".
Dr Dwyer: "It would be corrupt, wouldn't it?"
Mr Perrottet: "Yes".
Dr Dwyer: "And you weren't silly enough to do something so blunt and obvious?"
Mr Perrottet" "I wouldn't have called Dom and told him to tell the building commissioner to issue an [occupation certificate] to Toplace, or he'll have problems."
Mr Nassif's development company Toplace went into voluntary administration in 2023, allegedly owing more than a billion dollars and leaving thousands with structural and building defects.
When asked if he was trying to avoid getting his brother "in trouble" in relation to Mr Nassif, Mr Perrottet said he "just wouldn't do it".
There is no suggestion Dominic Perrottet knew about the request.
'False evidence under oath'
Dr Dwyer accused Mr Perrottet and his wife Anita of giving inconsistent evidence to the commission about payments made to her company Macquaire Consulting.
The inquiry previously heard Ms Perrottet was paid more than $660,000 over two-and-a-half years, during which she worked an average of 16 hours a week for solely verbal advice.
The ICAC is examining whether the payments were for genuine consulting work or used to disguise money allegedly intended for her husband.
Mr Perrottet told the public hearing this week that some of the money paid to Macquarie Consulting also covered advice he provided to lobbyist Jeremy Greenwood about Toplace.
Dr Dwyer argued this contradicted his wife's evidence that the payments were for her own work, and that neither she nor her husband had worked to benefit Toplace.
Dr Dwyer: "I suggest to you, Mr Perrottet, that your wife, Anita, is a clever woman. Do you agree with me?"
Mr Perrottet: "Smart."
Dr Dwyer: "You outsmarted yourself, I'm suggesting to you, by not getting your stories entirely straight, because you fabricated evidence with Anita that you've given to this inquiry. Is that the situation?"
Mr Perrottet: "Not at all."
Dr Dwyer also indicated that Mr Perrottet could not yet be released from his summons.
Texts reveal efforts to stop ABC News story
Text messages shown to the inquiry showed Charles Perrottet told Mr Nassif he had spoken to upper house MPs about seeking a parliamentary order for documents from the government.
Mr Perrottet said the standing order would be pursued through a motion commonly used by opposition and crossbench MPs to seek government documents.
"Spoke to those MPs," Mr Perrottet told Mr Nassif, adding the order would be pursued when parliament resumed.
Mr Perrottet then outlined steps for himself, Mr Nassif and Toplace executive Sharangan Maheswaran, including hiring a lobbyist to provide "front door access" and exploring legal options.
It also included trying to stop an ABC News story revealing defects at Toplace's Skyview apartments, while pursuing negative media coverage of the building regulator.
Mr Perrottet also told Mr Nassif he would raise the developer's concerns with then-minister for better regulation and fair trading Kevin Anderson.
Mr Perrottet told the inquiry that the promise was a lie to appease Mr Nassif.
Attempts to keep Mr Nassif calm
Mr Perrottet also told the commission he misled Mr Nassif when he promised to get the state's building commissioner "off his back".
Further messages showed Mr Nassif repeatedly pressed Mr Perrottet to intervene over the actions of the-then building commissioner.
"Hi Charles, this needs to stop," Mr Nassif wrote in one message, accusing Mr Chandler of abusing his powers.
Mr Perrottet responded by offering to call Mr Nassif, and said he had already discussed the matter with Mr Maheswaran.
Dr Dwyer suggested Mr Perrottet was spending significant time making calls and giving Mr Nassif the impression he was taking action.
Mr Perrottet said that was the nature of their relationship and that he was trying to keep Mr Nassif calm.
Open Questions
- Will Charles Perrottet face further legal consequences?
- What will be the final findings of the ICAC inquiry?


