Inside knowledge or ‘making stuff up’? Charles Perrottet’s advice to Jean Nassif put under microscope by Icac
News Source
•Tue, 01 Sep 2026 15:00:01 GMT
📰 What Happened
On his third day giving evidence at Icac, Charles Perrottet faced tough questions about texts. The messages suggested he knew about NSW government plans to fast-track major developments — before they were announced.
Icac also asked whether Perrottet helped the fugitive developer Jean Nassif get his developments through the fast track. Perrottet had to explain the difference between paid work and friendly advice.
🔍 The Backstory
Charles Perrottet is the brother of the former NSW premier and treasurer. Icac is looking into claims that he, Jeremy Greenwood and Christian Ellis — all active members of the Liberal party's right faction — took a $2m payment from Nassif.
That would break the NSW Electoral Funding Act, which has long banned such payments. Nassif himself is a fugitive developer, adding to the storm around the case. The inquiry is digging into whether planning favours were sold.
🎯 Why It Matters
This case asks a simple question: can rich developers buy fast decisions from people in politics? The answer shapes whether ordinary people can trust that planning rules apply to everyone equally.
On his third day giving evidence at Icac, Charles Perrottet faced tough questions about texts. The messages suggested he knew about NSW government plans to fast-track major developments — before they were announced.
Icac also asked whether Perrottet helped the fugitive developer Jean Nassif get his developments through the fast track. Perrottet had to explain the difference between paid work and friendly advice.
Charles Perrottet is the brother of the former NSW premier and treasurer. Icac is looking into claims that he, Jeremy Greenwood and Christian Ellis — all active members of the Liberal party's right faction — took a $2m payment from Nassif.
That would break the NSW Electoral Funding Act, which has long banned such payments. Nassif himself is a fugitive developer, adding to the storm around the case. The inquiry is digging into whether planning favours were sold.
This case asks a simple question: can rich developers buy fast decisions from people in politics? The answer shapes whether ordinary people can trust that planning rules apply to everyone equally.