Background to the inquiry
The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) is examining a alleged scheme in which property developer Jean Nassif is said to have funneled $2 million in illegal donations to Liberal factional operatives Christian Ellis, Jeremy Greenwood and Charles Perrottet. The controversy ignited in June 2022 when NSW MP Ray Williams used parliamentary privilege to claim senior party members had been “paid significant funds” to install new councillors on Hills Shire council in order to support Toplace, Nassif’s development company.
Following the incendiary speech, then‑premier Dominic Perrottet referred the allegations to ICAC. The watchdog’s focus is on whether the funds were intended to secure political outcomes, notably the practice known as branch stacking—recruiting and renewing party members to bolster a faction’s influence. While branch stacking itself is not illegal, prosecutors allege the payments were designed to manipulate council decisions and party dynamics.
Dominic Perrottet is not named as a person of interest and is not accused of any wrongdoing. The inquiry has already heard that the Liberal fundraiser in April 2021, attended by Perrottet while he was treasurer, has become a focal point for investigators probing the flow of money.
Witness accounts and internal concerns
Sharangan Maheswaran, a former Strathfield councillor and lawyer to Nassif, became an executive at Toplace in September 2020. He later found himself at the centre of the ICAC investigation after attending the April 2021 fundraiser for Hawkesbury Liberal MP Robyn Preston. A photograph shows Maheswaran alongside Ellis and Perrottet.
Texts presented to the commission reveal Maheswaran’s unease. After Ellis contacted him about Williams’ speech, Maheswaran wrote, “Oh shit, did he touch on me?” and asked for his name on a payment form for the fundraiser—originally addressed to Ellis’s mother, Virginia Ellis, a Liberal Hills Shire councillor—to be changed to that of his company, Anwalt Pty Ltd. He also expressed worry about a potential referral of Toplace to ICAC, stating, “I just don’t want to have to give evidence.”
His concerns were echoed in messages to fellow Labor Strathfield councillor Karen Pensabene. “I think it should be fine, but it looks bad,” Maheswaran wrote. Pensabene’s retort—“Would you stop going to Lib functions, please?”—elicited a brief, defensive reply: “Haha, I haven’t been to one for the year.”
Maheswaran told the commission he attended the event after informing Nassif, who had received an invitation, that he could not donate personally because he was a property developer. He claimed the $990 tickets for himself and Ellis were paid for with Anwalt’s company card and that his presence was on behalf of the Fire Brigade Employees Union (FBEU) to raise concerns with the treasurer, not to represent Toplace.
By February 2023, during a parliamentary inquiry prompted by Williams’ speech, Maheswaran’s messages to Greenwood appeared “panicked.” He wrote, “I’ve got an explanation ready to issue from the FBEU, but fucking CE [Christian Ellis] was very insistent on a picture with me, him, and Dom, like very fucking insistent.” Greenwood’s terse response—“Because he’s a dumb fuck”—was also entered into evidence.
Counsel assisting, Peggy Dwyer SC, suggested Maheswaran may have fabricated the union story to conceal that he attended at Nassif’s request. Maheswaran refuted this, stating he had genuine correspondence with the union outlining “matters they’d like to raise with the state treasurer” and that he did not “go on my time machine and create those conversations.”
Financial flows and alleged political outcomes
The inquiry has traced a series of payments linking Toplace to the lobbying firm Beckington, which is controlled by Ellis and Greenwood. Maheswaran insisted that payments from Toplace to Beckington were not for political outcomes, a claim contested by Dwyer, who alleges the funds were earmarked for recruiting and renewing Liberal party members.
Ellis, who has moved overseas, is not expected to appear, while Greenwood and Charles Perrottet have both denied that any Toplace payments were intended to influence political results. Charles Perrottet has explained that he added a “political flavour” to advice in order to secure payments for genuine consulting work.
The $2 million figure is broken down in the evidence as comprising several instalments allegedly made to the three operatives. The ICAC hearing has also examined the $990 ticket purchase, highlighting the intersection of personal attendance and financial contributions at the fundraiser.
While the practice of branch stacking is not criminal, the commission is assessing whether the alleged donations breached NSW electoral laws. The case raises broader questions about the transparency of political financing and the extent to which development interests may be influencing local council decisions.
ICAC’s current investigation
Monday’s session saw Maheswaran confronted with the photograph of himself, Ellis and Perrottet at the fundraiser. The witness reiterated that his attendance was orchestrated to address firefighter union concerns and that any financial arrangements were strictly business‑related.
Christian Ellis’s absence is noted; his relocation overseas has complicated efforts to obtain his testimony. Jeremy Greenwood and Charles Perrottet have both issued statements denying any illicit intent behind the payments.
Counsel Dwyer continues to probe the nexus between the alleged donations and specific council actions, particularly those favouring Toplace’s development applications. The commission’s focus remains on whether the money was a quid pro quo for political favours, a question that could have far‑reaching implications for NSW’s political landscape.
Why it Matters
The ICAC inquiry shines a spotlight on the enduring vulnerability of Australia’s political financing system to covert influence from property developers. If the allegations are substantiated, they could trigger a seismic shift in public trust, prompting urgent reforms to tighten donation reporting and curb the practice of branch stacking. Moreover, the case may reshape the balance of power within the Liberal Party and set a precedent for how anti‑corruption bodies tackle sophisticated money‑laundering tactics aimed at swaying local governance. The outcome will reverberate through upcoming state elections, influencing voter sentiment and potentially reshaping the coalition’s strategic alliances.
