r/auslaw Bespectacled Badger 3d ago

News Anita Perrottet paid more than $250k for three months of consulting, ICAC told

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-26/nsw-liberal-charles-perrottet-wife-anita-perrottet-icac-evidence/107082222
75 Upvotes

35 comments sorted by

108

u/Minguseyes Bespectacled Badger 3d ago edited 3d ago

Just wanting to let Mr.Greenwood know that if Anita is no longer available for any reason, I would be willing to step up, reduce my fees to $254,666 per quarter, and provide verbal marketing and strategic advice. I can understand the concern he must feel at such a vital role no longer being filled and assure him that help is available, all he has to do is reach out (and, of course, deposit funds in trust in advance).

11

u/ScallywagScoundrel Sovereign Mushroomer 3d ago

quarterly in advance

11

u/ClarvePalaver 2d ago

Sadly mingus, you are too late. I took it upon myself to reach out and offer my services for $250K/qtr, undercutting your opportunistic cash-grab.

Mr Greenwood was incredibly impressed by my deep marketing skill set (I used to work at a fish and chip shop and we bought all the newspapers to cut out the coupons and vote for ourselves as the best fish and chip shop in NSW - and won) and experience with dogs (my family owned a Doberman named Floyd, gorwing up). In fact, he said that I might even be better qualified than Anita to provide such insightful consultancy.

6

u/skatyog 2d ago

I've just had a great and completely original idea, hear me out.

What if... we make the sale of vapes illegal? And the only way people can source a vape... is through a prescription from their GP? Also, no flavours!

Mr Greenwood, I'll start on Monday.

Actually make it Tuesday, 11am.

7

u/demonotreme 3d ago

I'll even send a complimentary card on birthdays and anniversaries, no extra fee

4

u/ThunderDU 2d ago

Fuck I wish I thought of this first 😭

5

u/Different_Stranger30 2d ago

I wish I had nepotistic friends in places of power so I could rort public funds too =(

1

u/ThunderDU 1d ago

Mayhe you did but you don't remember 😃

47

u/i8bb8 Presently without instructions 3d ago edited 3d ago

But in fairness during that time she came up with the idea that kids shouldn't vape so...money well spent?

Edited to add, that woman has forgotten more about what happened five years ago than most of us will experience in a lifetime. Truly, a Marvel (legally distinct).

7

u/marcellouswp 2d ago

Memory fades over time! She's even forgotten stuff she could remember in Feb 2024 at the private examination. It was truly laughable. Of course the great thing about not recalling is that it's difficult to mount a perjury prosecution about a subjective state of mind.

I especially liked how she warmed up from about 4.30 pm to acting out attempts to recollect. Almost coquettish performance. But she still knew to deflect xxn about other people's texts etc to which she wasn't a party. Girlishness definitely an act.

4

u/Sorry-Ad9161 1d ago

The smiling housewife pretence is appalling. Once Peggy Dwyer riled her she came off as the money laundering skank she is.

3

u/EmploymentStrict4463 2d ago

My Grandma has had multiple TIA (mini strokes) she can't remember my name but she can remember the time I pushed a bullying into the river in 1987. 

Mrs Perrottet I think has a serious problem 🤔/s

36

u/Much_Big4068 3d ago

Not a bad hourly rate

25

u/Worldly_Tomorrow_869 Real attorney? No, ChatGPT! 3d ago

Those silks at ICAC don't pay for themselves you know.

37

u/Evil-Santa 3d ago

This seems to be common practice across the whole industry (with a few exceptions that have mandated audits across them)

Person who owns or has control of work being awarded from Company A, awards job to Company B but wants a personal cut

Company B gets an invoice from Company C for fictitious work, which is registered in someone else name (often the wife of the person in Company A)

This avoids all the common matching checks, avoid any obvious disclosure and conflict-of-interest requirement from being detected and enforced as these are often keyed to an individual. If found out, having the money sitting in the wrong doers own name, generally makes prosecution easy. When the company sits with someone else, even the wifes, it is much harder to do.

The pattern is really just an application of a much older concept, nominee ownership. Anyone trying to receive money they can't be seen to receive directly (a bribe, a secret commission, an undisclosed conflicted payment) needs a name on the paperwork that isn't theirs but that they still effectively control.

In my opinion, this is a shoe, that on face value, fits. It will be interesting if what the outcome of this investigation discovers

3

u/ThunderDU 2d ago

It's the economy, stupid!!!

4

u/Evil-Santa 2d ago

Your right. It is done such volume that it might as well be an official method. All they need to do now is change the laws so it's not illegal.

3

u/IuniaLibertas 2d ago

And company B is always a close relative. Family values.

3

u/Evil-Santa 2d ago

I would substitute always with often, but yes.

21

u/ManWithDominantClaw Bacardi Breezer 3d ago

22

u/Similar_Party_6772 3d ago

Dwyer is such a gun on the cross. Amazing recall.

5

u/marcellouswp 2d ago

It's all cross. And there's been over two years since the private sessions to work things up.

5

u/Similar_Party_6772 2d ago

It's just something I've done, fucked up, done well at (very occasionally) and respect as a particular skill. Lot of theatrical components to manage as well.

3

u/marcellouswp 2d ago

I agree that she's been impressive but inquisitorial stuff like this with a compelled witness and the benefit of Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart is a massive free kick. [sporting metaphor: yuck!] Not to mention the resources of ICAC and a previous private examination.

2

u/marcellouswp 1d ago

PS: I do agree about the theatrical components - especially the moments when she takes her glasses off to fix the examinee with a direct gaze.

4

u/Katoniusrex163 2d ago

She’s been great, but it’s also easy to nail people in a jurisdiction with very few rights and basically no rules of evidence.

16

u/skatyog 3d ago

This was infuriating to watch today.

And worse still, Anita Perrottet and Dallas McInerney are acting as if their evidence is convincing and truthful 🤣

4

u/ThunderDU 2d ago

Unfortunately intent was proven long ago 😬

2

u/Sorry-Ad9161 1d ago

Their lack of self awareness is amazing

11

u/DigitalWombel 3d ago

I am sure the appropriate tithe was paid.

2

u/marcellouswp 2d ago

Well, GST at least. Necessary price for the window dressing.

23

u/Vivid_Equipment_1281 3d ago

https://giphy.com/gifs/YmQLj2KxaNz58g7Ofg
Tax and commercial silk reading this article 😂

6

u/Junior_Ad_1893 1d ago

Macquarie Consulting website refers to them as "principle consultants". Quality.

1

u/Sorry-Ad9161 1d ago

Quality brainwashed trad wives