A new witness - former WA Corporate Affairs official Ralph Mineif and the Minister's directive to incorporate
Friday, 27 February 2015
I met with Ray Neal, the former WA Corporate Affairs Commissioner in January in Perth. Ray Neal gave me the name of an official who worked with him at the time of the AWU WRA incorporation - Ralph Mineif.
Well after a month of searching and with a little help from our friends I met with Ralph Mineif today.
I've recorded a few interviews with him, he's as sharp as a tack, now retired on a large block to the west of Sydney. He is ready, willing and able to appear before the Royal Commission - he's also emphatic that the AWU WRA would never have been incorporated without a direction from a Minister of the Crown. A Labor Party Minister.
Great stuff. Surely the TURC had access to the Vic Pol file on the AWU WRA, and even if they didn't why not enquire of Ray Neal and or Ralph Mineif about their recollections of the registration of the AWU WRA. Good grief, that letter from Ray Neal featured prominently in the TURC evidence???????
There is only one logical answer which is that the TURC would be led into areas where they would not be able to give Gillard a leave pass. That is another reason why Gillard's letter on S&G letter head has conveniently gone missing perhaps it was also seeking Ministerial intervention/approval. This is a massive miscarriage of justice. It sickens me to the core of my being.
Who was the Minister at the time? Does anybody know?
Posted by: St. George | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 02:00 PM
The plot thickens..
Will this AWU scandal,that so many people have tried to sweep under the carpet,ever be solved.!!!!!
Isn't it astounding that people who had knowledge of how the system worked were not called to the Royal Commission.!!
I am still smelling that RAT...It just won't go away!
Posted by: kooka | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 02:17 PM
In a conflict of interest situation of her own creation, Julia Gillard persisted for several months before succeeding in getting incorporation of an Association that never existed in a form acceptable under s(9) of the Associations Incorporation Act 1987(WA), and which she made permanently ineligible under s8(d)of the Act by use of the unauthorised use of the proscribed AWU name she personally wrote on the Application, all to make sure no one got any of their contributions back from a slush fund.
She says she did nothing wrong and Commissioner Heydon believes her. I say 'un-bloody-believable'!!
Posted by: hillbilly33 | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 02:35 PM
Just another quick thought or two. Is it possible that Ray Neal's letter was a forgery, created after event. Can Ray Neal actually remember signing it? Wilson/Gillard were so desperate to bank some cheques from Theiss. They started a bank account for the AWU-WRA illegally with the assistance of a compliant local Commonwealth Bank Manager. So the registration of AWU-WRA via Ministerial approval was an afterthought. No wonder the file in WA is empty. The contents would definitely throw Gillard under a bus.
Posted by: St. George | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 02:37 PM
I guess the labor apologists here at MSN will once again suggest that this is all hearsay and conspiracy stuff , and technicaly irrelavent with the usual diversionary duck and weave .
But I say good work michael ,and heres hoping justice gets a guernsey sometime soon , and all this new information is called before a Commissioner or judge who has a desire for truth .
Posted by: Political speedbump | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 02:55 PM
Just wondering if anyone knows how Vic Pol are going? I know putting this enormous case together with all it's entanglements would be a huge task. I just hope the new Police Minister in Vic has not been up to the normal Labor mischief.
Posted by: Boolean | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 02:57 PM
WHAT!!?? labor and the unions acting corruptly hand-in-hand!? The unions pulling their labor puppet's strings and the puppets dancing?
That would NEVER happen in Qld, NSW, Victoria, SA, WA or ever ever in Canberra. In fact, I just do not believe it at all. The unions are only there for the working class people and labor are there to earnestly and honestly represent the poor and vulnerable in Australia! They always say so. They would never lie!
Posted by: Mike | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 03:13 PM
It's a proven fact that the former Prime Minister Ms Julia Gillard is a lair.
There will be No Carbon tax under a government I lead.
The lies told to her partners at Slater & Gordon in her exit interview.
The lies exposed in her book My Story.
Lied to Ben Fordham in his radio interview with you and deliberately avoided answering a direct question about the POA to him when asked.
The lies told to the Federal parliament when questioned by Julia Bishop.
The lies told at her almost hour long press conference stage managed by her to try and circumvent those questions by Julia Bishop.
The lies she told about myself at that press conference...
Who do you believe the person standing before you or a self confessed fraudster.
Julia Gillard I know you read this blog site if what I am saying about you is defamatory then please sue me for defamation.
But you won't do that because you know I am the more truthful of the two of us.
The lies told to the Royal commission into Trade Union Corruption & Governance.
You called me a sexist pig in your press conference took the high moral ground yet you slept around with married men cum-on give me break.
Lets face it you are a person of No morals and an habitual lair who defrauded the Australian public of good government.
You should be ashamed of yourself along with your other criminal mates that you protected so as to stay in power... Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper.
Posted by: GOM | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 03:20 PM
The Royal Commission unlike Wilson has two eyes and unless it wants to br branded one-eyed it will re-open the inquiry into the AWU-WRA and summon Gillard, Wilson, Blewitt, Cambridge, Gordon, Gretch etc to appear.
There is now too much evidence to fit under the carpet without someone tripping over it.
Posted by: john greybeard | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 03:31 PM
His name is Noonan!!!!!
Posted by: Maggie 47 | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 03:48 PM
Will someone please let me know when the RC actually starts to 'dig' and if VicPol decide to prosecute
I am extremely disappointed - I can't imagine how Smithie is feeling
Posted by: MikeT (WA) | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 03:49 PM
I would have thought her evidence was unbelievable but the Commissioner said otherwise.
As it was an interim report he can still retract the statements made, now in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
If not, has a Royal Commissioner ever been taken to the High Court on a Writ of Mandamus?
Posted by: john greybeard | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 04:13 PM
I live in Victoria and I can only tell you, that so far
everything, which has been done has been for the unions.
The teachers do not have to do a test now, to check whether they know their work.
The Ambulance people who wrote all the labor-propaganda
all over their ambulances accepted less from Labor to settle their dispute than what the Libs had offered, so
The have changed the new 'move on' laws which were introduced after the CFMEU strikes for which they were fined millions. So now obviously the CFMEU can do whatever they like, the Police cannot do anything.
The Police minister's name is Noonan, so is the name of the Union's Secretary! Conflict of interest? they are family.
They are now even changing the speed-limits, always had been the job of the Police and the Motoring Associations.
The East/West Link will most likely still be cancelled, which will mean that we have to pay 1.2 Billion in penalties, where Victoria's part in the building of the road would be 1.5 Billion.
There have been rumours about the TURC, so I do not think it looks good, this is one of the worst governments I have seen so far in the few months they have been in.
Posted by: Liz of Vic | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 04:50 PM
Agree with all you said, hope you and Ruby are fine!
Posted by: Liz of Vic | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 04:53 PM
He is a Noonan ,I'd say he is way higher than his neck in this collective effluent , duly installed by the CFMEU Government ,and Vic Pol would have been further lent on to shut down their investigations ,as they have been incredibly very silent for a very very long time .
Not to mention that if VicPol are creating their own pre prepared witness statements for signing ,(as Ralph Mineif just stated ) BEFORE they actually interview the witness' ,then Its pretty clear a Police white wash had already been in the works for well over a year ....yet another orchestrated justice shutdown .
Posted by: Political speedbump | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 04:55 PM
There is more to this than meets the eye, and Michael keep plugging away so that the name of the Minister of the Crown who authorised the incorporation is revealed.
Posted by: Maggie1954 | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 05:04 PM
Nicely summed up Ralph ,there is a simple clear test of who is the liar .
If Gillard is truly Innocent , then she would happily submit to the matter being put before a court with an international fully independent Judge ,and let her fully answer all questions under oath , not a staged managed press conference ,or an increasingly biased compliant RC ,I doubt she would never ever have the gumption Ralph ...that's all the proof needed .
Only the guilty duck, weave and throw diversionary technicalities .
Posted by: Political speedbump | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 05:07 PM
Well penned Ralph...with you all the way.
Posted by: Anne | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 05:40 PM
I truly hope they can not but the new ALP / CFMEU state government in Victoria maybe examining ways of stopping the extension of the royal commission.
If they do I would would hope the federal government would step in and create some other investigation into these matters rather than letting the crooks win.
Posted by: Mike G | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 05:44 PM
The only work going on here is
the Old "Boys" NetWork.
Posted by: Sebastian de Grey | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 05:47 PM
Sadly the new police minister in Victoria is Dave Noonan's brother.
I would hope he would disqualify himself interfering in this matter but recent events in Victoria are not encouraging.
Posted by: Mike G | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 05:48 PM
I will bet that Julia and Carmen know who the Minister was.
Posted by: Ron OKnox | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 05:53 PM
I think it was true once Mike, but now, nah. Just a bunch of parasitic puppeteers scripting for the mediocre ex lawyers and officials who have delusions of grandeur.
Shorten's droll delivery tells me how seriously they take it. Bowen's grasp of the essential economic info tells me how capable they are. Conroy's loopy thinking tells us how dangerous.
Posted by: Jacket | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 05:58 PM
Hi St.George. No mystery about Gillard's missing letter. It's on Gillard's AWU-WRA file at Slater & Gordon where it's been since first written. Gillard made sure her partners never saw it for over three years and her partners have made sure no one outside their firm has seen it in the ensuing twenty years.
It shows the depths to which Labor law firms and the legal and justice systems have sunk in Australia, that no one has ever subpoenaed the principal document containing details of the setting up of the vehicle used in a case which several investigations have all found to be a matter of fraud.
Posted by: hillbilly33 | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 06:01 PM
Here is the Carmen Lawrence Ministry from the 1990 but when she took over from Brian Burke and Peter Dowding the same Ministers were kept on from their ministries.
Posted by: Michelle Two | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 06:05 PM
You reckon, it just sounds like bureaucracy.
Posted by: Ted Hartford | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 07:22 PM
M2 = I googled it just before I left work, wrote it down on my desk diary. Just arrived home and I have forgotten it already - it was a lady. It was in one of Michael's previous posts. Bloody hell - my memory is not what it used to be. Never mind, I am sure she would have conviently forgotten by now anyway.
Our only options to assist Michael here in his quest for justice is to keep the pressure on.
Posted by: St. George | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 07:29 PM
HB33 - My pet high horse - S&G why weren't they on the stand. Why weren't they asked about the AWU WRA check - just amazing. IMO
Posted by: St. George | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 07:32 PM
I Ihaven't heard from Headley Thomas on this subject for a while in the Australian. I must try and see if he is willing to to an update. Has anyone written to A/G Brandis??
Posted by: St. George | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 07:38 PM
Yes! The feminist (Gillard friend) and also Brian Burke's friend and former class mate, she was filling in for the absent minister and was a great adviser to Carmen Lawrence..Her name is Marcelle Anderson..
Posted by: Michelle Two | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 07:49 PM
A very reliable and diligent witness, that the TURC missed???? Coercion and indeed collusion????
The mind boggles about the Craig Thomson case and the fact that the TURC were not interested in Craig Thomson, which really speaks volumes???? Julia Gillard's strong links to Craig Thomson are of great concern????
The apparently unscrutinised/unaccountable TURC must think that everyone came down in the last shower!!!!
Posted by: THE MAFIA...AND THE TURC? | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 08:59 PM
The Vic. Govt, may be able to intervene with the police, but the Royal Commission is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Govt. And we still have Michael Smith keeping things alive, for which we are at least grateful.
Posted by: jek | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 09:02 PM
What is the highest court in Australia? and who are the judges..
Lets hope Heydon and others see sense by the time TURC is finished and bring justice back to the justice system in this country..
Posted by: Michelle Two | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 09:13 PM
The ALP is simply not fit to govern at any level.
Posted by: shaun k | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 09:13 PM
"Require a direction from a Minister"?? I think you mean require approval from a Minister. Am I right in thinking that you think Ministerial approval implies something wrong, corruption perhaps?
Doesn't Mr Mineif's answer to your question of what to do when "an application came in with the name of a union in the title" suggest it was perfectly normal to get an application containing the name of a union? He didn't answer "I don't remember such a thing happening, but if one came to me I would seek advice on how to handle it." He treats it as normal to get such and application and to seek Minsterial approval in such a case, and that's a little surprising isn't it? It kills a few popular theories that the application must have been automatically rejected, forcing Willard or Gillson to run to the Minister to get the public servants over-ruled by a Ministerial "direction"
And I can't help noticing that Mr Mineif never says he remembers this application from the time, which again suggests it was not unusual.
But perhaps Mr. Mineif had nothing to do with this application - he didn't say it had crossed his desk, did he?
Posted by: Michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 09:19 PM
Did Ray Neal deny signing that letter? I don't recall that we have heard Ray Neal deny it, and I can't believe MPS didn't ask Ray Neal about that letter?
Posted by: Michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 11:14 PM
When will you start investigating the extraordinary accusation that someone fabricated a statement by Mr Mineif and that statement was in hands of the police?
Mr. Mineif says clearly that he "can’t remember ever making a statement to ANY [emphasis added] police officer" yet, according to Mr Mineif, the police showed Mr Mineif an unsigned, undated statement with Mr Minieif's name at the bottom.
Could it have been anything to do with fabricating evidence against Julia Gillard? Gosh, why would anyone want to do that to the Prime Minister of Australia!
I will assume that the Vic Pol Fraud squad were not making an out-of-the-blue attempt at suborning perjury from Mr Mineif.
Posted by: Michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 11:26 PM
If I notice anything odd about this, or notice anything others may have overlooked, I probably will let you know, PSB.
Posted by: Michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Friday, 27 February 2015 at 11:53 PM
It smells like the biggest Glen 20 cover ever little Ted
Posted by: Lucy Blundell | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 12:11 AM
9 June 1992] GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, WA 2387
MINISTERIAL ACTING ARRANGEMENTS
It is hereby notified for public information that His Excellency the Governor has approved the
following temporary allocation of portfolios during the absence of the Hon. Y. D. Henderson MLA
for the period 6-21 June 1992 inclusive:-
Acting Minister for Productivity and Labour Relations: Hon. J. A. McGinty.
Acting Minister for Consumer Affairs: Hon. J. Watson.
M. C. WAUCHOPE, Acting Chief Executive,
Department of the Premier.
Hi St. George,
Consumer Affairs covered Corporate Affairs Commission.
The Ministers involved were Yvonne Henderson (whose husband
Jeremy Henderson worked for the Western Australian Trades & Labor Council) and Judyth Watson, who relieved Yvonne while she was overseas for that two week period. Yvonne was back as Minister at the date of incorporation.
The Western Australian Trades & Labor Council gets a mention in the AWU WA Branch Minutes a number of times under its initials TLC.
Posted by: seeker of truth | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 01:50 AM
From the WA Police subpoenaed records on this fraud. Det Sgt David McAlpine typed entry - "28/1/1997 Statement from (redacted) of Min of Fair Trading regarding Associations Incorporation Act."
The name R. Mineif would fit into this space. Possibly this is where the Vic Police got his name and the statement he referred to.
Back on 9 November 2012, Michael thought he had a person of unimpeached integrity who "retains a relevant contemporaneous account of correspondence between Julia Gillard and the WA Corporate Affairs Commissioner."
Where is that person now when we need him and his documents??? What was supposition back in 2012 that a Minister was involved now seems to be on the mark, according to Ralph Mineif.
Posted by: seeker of truth | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 02:59 AM
How does forging that letter from Ray Neal help them get the Association incorporated? They show it to Ray Neal and say, "See you promised, so you must incorporate"??? Yes Baldrick, a cunning plan.
Posted by: Michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 03:43 AM
"The Ambulance people ... accepted less from Labor to settle their dispute than what the Libs had offered ..."
Let me guess. If the "ambulance people" accepted less from the Libs than what Labor had offered you would be cheering, and saying how wonderfully tough the Libs are (makes you fell all gooey) but when it's the other way round it just puzzles you - certainly not something to celebrate? Am I right?
Posted by: Michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 03:49 AM
Of course they would except less, they had got their union boss and his mates in to power.
I am still staggered has to how this union could use public vehicles as a means of advertising for Labor.
Posted by: lily | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 08:11 AM
I doubt you'll hear Hedley Thomas again on this subject until we expose it all on the blogosphere. Sadly, despite all his good work, because of the constraints placed on him and other "investigative" journalists by the weakness of all the MSM hierarchy in not calling Gillard's bluff on her gross abuse of the powers of her office with her threats of defamation, draconian media enquiries and other such intimidatory tactics, their articles were always peppered with ridiculous phrases such as "there was no evidence and/or there is no suggestion of any wrongdoing or that she 'knew' of any criminal activities."
As we know here, almost every one of her actions points to her knowing involvement from day one and the other extraordinary feature of this case is, neither she nor any of her apologists have ever produced one shred of evidence to support her constant bleats of "I did nothing wrong"!
All that has ever been offered are excuses as to why, in the matter of the AWU-WRA Inc. Fraud, she never carried out any of the fiduciary obligations and duties of care she had as a solicitor, partner and most importantly, an officer of the court.
Wearing a tag as the slackest sloppiest lawyer in Australian history just won't cut it in a proper court of law (if there is such a thing in Australia anymore)!
It is going to up to us to shame them all with the truth St.George. Believe me, it's all there!
Posted by: hillbilly33 | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 08:33 AM
Just a reminder of her dictionary entry (not the Macquarie of course) which perhaps the RC and CA should have referred to in the proceedings and report—
1. Julia Gillard
1. A liar.
Julia Gillard: Good morning, everyone.
Rest of the room: *checks watches to confirm that it is, in fact, morning*
There might be a long standing historical association with perfidy—
"Gillard—Name Meaning (English): from a pejorative derivative of the personal name Giles. English and French: from an assimilated form of the personal name Gislehard, a compound of Old High German gisel ‘hostage’, ‘pledge’, ‘noble youth’ (see Giesel) + hard ‘hardy’. This name is also found in Switzerland, whence it may have been brought to the U.S.
Posted by: Old Rooster | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 08:52 AM
Turgidity of the TURC, leads me to the conclusion that it is nothing but a sack of potatoes. Nothing will come of this new revelation.
Posted by: Truth_Will_Out | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 09:03 AM
Tender Loving Corruption.
Says it all.
Posted by: john greybeard | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 09:04 AM
There is nothing like having a relative in the business.
Posted by: john greybeard | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 09:07 AM
It's a very big dead rat and with our help the smell should get much worse! Edward James on the long paddock
Posted by: Edward James | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 09:10 AM
It's tiresome the way justice drags its feed when politicians are under the pump! Can anyone imagine any wages level citizens taking so long to go through the legal process without politicians involved? All equal under the law. Pigs we are! Edward James on the long paddock
Posted by: Edward James | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 09:16 AM
I'd like to see Gillard end up her Gillard "arse".
"The Gillard "arse" controversy began in March 2012, when on On the ABC's Q&A, Greer mocked Prime Minister Julia Gillard's figure, saying she should face the fact she has a “big arse”." - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/germaine-greers-big-mouth/story-e6frg6n6-1226459624896
Posted by: Truth_Will_Out | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 09:36 AM
Michelle, I don't think Marcelle Anderson was ever a member of parliament. She was, I think, a ministerial staffer or maybe head of a department. I also think she is the sister of Metaxis mentioned in the Wilson/Gillard/AWU registraion matter.
Posted by: Maggie 47 | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 11:08 AM
I bet that the god damned TURC couldn't care less????
Posted by: THE MAFIA...AND THE TURC? | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 11:39 AM
Very interesting interview michael. I always thought it weird that ancorporation was granted on the condition that a requirement be satisfied with certain time limits. I have no understanding or experience in corporate matters but it struck me as very strange indeed. Can't wait to find out more. That shovel of yours must be Looking well worn by now
Posted by: Jenstar | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 11:40 AM
For some god damned reason, the TURC are not interested to know?????
Posted by: THE MAFIA...AND THE TURC? | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 11:41 AM
Indeed Edward, sewer rats hate the light and they live in darkness, they hate exposure.
This relativist TURC is in certain cases, all about relativity, not actual truth. It is a terrible state of affairs, when you simply cannot trust the legal system to do their $job properly?
No wonder our political system is in such disarray with so many dud lawyers, who are now devious, embellishing politicians, rapidly destroying Australia.
Posted by: THE MAFIA...AND THE TURC? | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 11:50 AM
As you well know M(TDA), we've been through all this before and it was very unusual and definitely not normal!
'Union name would have triggered queries: registrar'
Hedley tThomas and Paige Taylor | The Australian | November 30, 2012 12:00AM
Mr Metaxas said: "If we were made aware of something misleading, we would investigate and go through the steps that were specified.
"I would have thought that a union had to be registered under its own different industrial relations legislation and that's why the application by this one triggered our response."
"Having the union name in it would have triggered a letter from us asking the applicant: 'What is the purpose of this entity? Is it union-related?'
"I do not know of any other unions or union-related entities being registered under the Associations Incorporation Act.
"And this one was not brought to my attention.
"The first thing we would do is find out what the intent is. You would say, 'Well, hang on'. But I don't think anyone (applying) is going to tell you, 'It's a union slush fund'. I think they would give some purpose to it and say, 'The thing is bona fide, it's not misleading, it is eligible'. We would have said: 'We think there's a problem here. What is this?'
"You couldn't be a trading organisation under the Associations Incorporation Act. The act was just not intended for that purpose."
Under the legislation that applied at the time, Mr Metaxas was not permitted to incorporate an association that in his opinion was likely to mislead the public as to the object or purpose of the association.
Posted by: hillbilly33 | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 12:10 PM
You again lead and extrapolate from the automatic perception Gillard always did nuffin wrong .
Maybe it didn't cross his (maniefs)desk because the natural course of applications had indeed been circumvented by a corrupted process o that occasion ,
um...isn't that why they call it corruption !!! ,
That's what we are all trying to get at piece by piece, if you really are a legal type then you would understand such a basic premis ,if all answers fitted a normal logical path immediately , then corruption wouldn't exist to subvert such processes.
But why is it so pronounced that "he never says he remembers that particular application" , given that he didn't say "it crossed his desk" . Its a no brainer that if something hadn't "crossed your desk" then how can you possibly remember it ? .To me it a non relevant diversionary point .
However Mr Mineif (on this 1st occasion) is commenting on his take on normal procedural path for such an application which had used the word "Union" , pretty simple really ,he wasn't trying to prosecute in detail the wrongs a specific example of such .
lets wait for more of Mr Maneif's input before you tear it apart with textbook technicalities . Its possible you may ultimately be right , but lets not get too premature .
Whats that saying ,"me thinks he doth protest to much"
Posted by: Political speedbump | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 12:21 PM
Again , you attack with the Biased pre-ordained automatic premis that Gillard is always innocent ,and Minief therefore must be automatically wrong and now be investigated for accusing Vic Pol of "fabrication" of statements
Mr Manief only said he had never seen the statement and was never interviewed , Has it occurred to your legal mind that Mr Manief could not possibly have provided a statement ,if he had NOT actually been interviewed ?? .There could be a perfectly rational explaination .
Or is he just automatically a Liar , just because you have decreed it so .
Posted by: Political speedbump | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 12:32 PM
Seeker of truth has provided your answer M(TDA).
It is a curious fact that as far as Heydon's "findings" in relation to Gillard's (mis)-conduct, the Royal Commissioner has seemingly chosen to totally ignore the facts uncovered by the extensive WA Fraud Squad investigation; the facts uncovered by Slater & Gordon partners, the only ones ever to have had access to Gillard's long-time hidden AWU-WRA file; and much of the extensive Ian Cambridge investigation.
Given that the whole Chapter 3.2 Report is based round an Association most acknowledge never existed in a form capable of being lawfully incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act 1987 (WA), (including Heydon and Stoljar SC), if it is not to be seen by the public as simply a vehicle to whitewash certain leading figures, its main purpose should be sheeting home responsibility to the many guilty parties, and transparently seen to be doing so.
In Para 377 of his Chapter 3.2 report, Commissioner Heydon stated: 'Criticisms have been made of aspects of what she did in helping to incorporate the Australian Workers' Union- Workplace Reform Association Inc. But the criticisms do not turn on non-acceptance of her evidence.
They turn on inferences from non-controversial evidence, and comparisons between the standards she had to meet and the way she met them'.
IMHO, that is arrant nonsense.
Commissioner Heydon's "findings" on Gillard appear to be based almost entirely on his acceptance of what she claimed in the 11 September 1995 exit interview, the transcript of which was designed never to see the light of day, containing supposedly plausibly deniable but ridiculous excuses of her actions, self-admittedly designed to try and protect the partners who made the decision to keep secret the details of her departure from the firm, if the whole AWU-WRA Inc. affair was ever exposed to outside investigation.
Heydon goes so far as to quote word for word some of her more ridiculous fantasies and offer them as being true, to support his many non-evidence based assumptions that she 'did not know' this or that.
Rest assured the reasons for his "findings" will be thoroughly analysed and if found wanting, will be very publicly aired. The confidence of the public in Royal Commissions and the whole justice system in Australia demands nothing less!
Posted by: hillbilly33 | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 01:20 PM
'From the WA Police subpoenaed records on this fraud. Det Sgt David McAlpine typed entry - "28/1/1997 Statement from (redacted) of Min of Fair Trading regarding Associations Incorporation Act."'
It that is true it doesn't say much for Mr Mineif's memory of events of the 1990s does it? Mr Mineif said "But I can’t remember ever making a statement to any police officer."
I am not criticizing Mr Mineif - I would hardly expect anyone to remember much about what happened at work in the 1990s, but perhaps a visit by the police might stick in the memory.
Posted by: Michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 01:21 PM
Yes I know Seeker has come to the rescue below..
Posted by: Michelle Two | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 01:41 PM
Here is the article Michael done on her last Sept..
Posted by: Michelle Two | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 01:44 PM
I just made comment in that old topic from last year. ;)
Posted by: Truth_Will_Out | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 02:25 PM
Hey Ralph ..... Why don't you just write direct to JG . What proof do you have that she reads MSN ????
Her contact details are easy to find .... If you have trouble let me know and I will send it thru to you .
If you have a legal beef with her ... Get cracking and do some thing in the Courts .
Posted by: Gus W | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 02:33 PM
Rather curious that Mr Mineif was so hard to find ...... There is only one by that name in the white pages .... Found him in 30 seconds !!!!!!
Just curious !
[His name was misspelled in several references and his move to NSW was not widely known. MPS]
Posted by: Gus W | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 02:38 PM
I don't know Michael. On memory, one would have thought your idol Princess Pureheart Gillard, might have remembered on 14/8/95 when Geoff Shaw and Nick Styant-Browne came to see her specifically for the purpose of checking whether she had set up a dodgy association to allow her lover to embezzle money and launder some of it through their firm to purchase a love nest, that a file she had opened only three years before, containing details of the bogus entity she had advised and assisted her lover to set up for those purposes, was actually - surprise, surprise, in the filing cabinet where such files were usually kept.
When Geoff Shaw said it would be easy to check whether it had been opened on the system, one might even have thought Miss Innocent would have immediately walked a few metres to do that check or had her secretary Leesha do so.
However, here's that paragon of virtue and truth, the Princess herself to explain what actually happened!
"In the surrounding chaos, I must admit I didn't do anything to check whether or not I opened it on the system. I subsequently but relatively quickly thereafter went on a period of leave and, whilst I was focused on the issues surrounding this, I wasn't particularly focused about the file.
I said when -- to Leesha -- when I went on leave was one of the things I was doing when I was packing up, did she remember this file at all? And she said she did and when I came back from leave she said that it was, that it had been in the cabinet, that she'd found it, did I want it?"
Hallelujah! Who could ever doubt her innocence? LOL
Posted by: hillbilly33 | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 02:40 PM
Yvonne Henderson was voted in and a member of the Brian Burke Caucus (the years 1983-91)from Jeff Carr biography.
Yvonne then went up in the ranks and was promoted to the cabinet along with Carmen Lawrence when Peter Dowding was made the Premier.
Posted by: Michelle Two | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 02:48 PM
Never in doubt. like you say...Nudge, Nudge...wink, wink. LOL
Posted by: Truth_Will_Out | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 02:55 PM
Are some Missing the point yet again , those of us against corruption are actually angered by the missuse of the PUBLIC assets ( ambulances) , not any bullshit financial settlement , but then again we're not sniffing the cash like some involved types would... by default .
Posted by: political speedbump | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 04:12 PM
A trove article mentioning Yvonne Henderson and the Mark Royal Commission..
Posted by: Michelle Two | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 04:27 PM
Finding a phone book listing ,(assuming it was still correct at book print time),But Then physicaly locating,( and sitting down for a recorded interview ) are 2 entirely different things ,as any process/summons server , or OSR department sherrif would confirm ......I would have thought that would be obvious .
Nothing sinister there .
Posted by: Political speedbump | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 04:30 PM
Right on, HB. I think Gillard went on forced leave for a fortnight late August before her return on Monday 4 September 1995 then had a week to sort out her files before the exit interview on Monday 11 September.
As soon as Leesha informed her that she remembered the file, why didn't Gillard instruct Leesha to search for it and hand it to Geoff Shaw as he required it? Why did she wait another fortnight before handing over the file and explaining her involvement to Paul Mulvaney just a few days prior to the exit interview? It would have given the three Partners doing the investigation a fortnight within which to conduct their own enquiries, instead of relying on her explanations at the exit interview. S&G could have contacted the WA CAC and requested that they copy them by fax with all correspondence on the Commission's records for the AWU-WRA Inc to and from Ms Gillard as a representative of the firm and solicitor for the applicant. They would have been aware of the requirement of an undertaking to the CAC from Ralph Blewitt and her necessity to inform him of this undertaking requirement.
It would have made a lie of her reply at the exit interview
PG: “Can I ask you then following the last thing that we did to setting up the incorporation which appears from the file to be a letter arguing that it ought to be not construed as a trade union, did you have anything personally to do with that incorporated association afterwards.”
JG: “No I did not.”
Another question arises from the questions concerning the AWU WRA Inc, is how did the Partners know of the existence of this Association before being made aware of Ms Gillard's personal file containing its papers in the back of a cabinet? What were the circumstances that caused them to enquire specifically about the AWU-WRA Inc? From all our research, it would seem that S&G only knew of its existence via an entry on the trust account for Blewitt's purchase of Kerr St. An entry that was later changed to reflect Ralph Blewitt's name to divert examination by authorities of S&G and the firm's involvement in the AWU-WRA fraud at that time.
Posted by: seeker of truth | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 04:56 PM
Gillards well earned reputation as slack and sloppy, is doubly unfortunate for a woman to have. Edward James on the long paddock
Posted by: Edward James on the long paddock | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 05:30 PM
St George. While I expect these Ministers kept diaries. Would it be too much to expect her to have incriminated herself in some way? Edward James on the long paddock
Posted by: Edward James on the long paddock | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 05:33 PM
One of these was the relevant minister. What was the relevant portfolio?
The Act doesn't even say who/what minister is responsible:
Posted by: Extreme Centrist | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 06:56 PM
Another Trove article from 1993 mentioning Yvonne Henderson..
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/127226890?searchTerm=Yvonne Henderson labor&searchLimits=
And announcement of the new Cabinet 0n 19 Feb 1990 under Carmen Lawrence.. Yvonne Henderson was the minister for Housing and Consumer Affairs
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131180100?searchTerm=Yvonne Henderson labor&searchLimits=
Posted by: Michelle Two | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 07:29 PM
Posted by: Gus W | Saturday, 28 February 2015 at 11:19 PM
So Mr Minefif doesn't know what he's talking about, is that your point?
And by the way, I think Mr Mineif may have been talking about whether it was a union, not whether it had a misleading name, which seems to be your point. But the questioning was the usual extraction of what MPS wants the interviewee to say, not an exploration of what the interviewee meant, so maybe we will never know.
Posted by: Michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Sunday, 01 March 2015 at 12:23 AM
Where did I say Mr Mineif must be investigated?
You ask me "hasn't it occurred to ...". Lots of things have occurred to me, but I don't always broadcast them.
Seeker of Truth thinks Mr Mineif WAS interviewed (and hence must have forgotten though SOT didn't say that) and I think that is possible.
What would your perfectly rational explanation be if the police showed you a statement with your name at the bottom which you had never made? I would want to know more about where the police got this statement at least, because I wouldn't have an explanation.
I never said I Mr Mineif was a liar, but it did occur to me that someone other than Mr Mineif might have written a statement, put Mr Mineif's name on it, leaked it to police in the hope that the police would do some investigating of Julia Gillard. Far-fetched I know, but no more far-fetched than the theories MPS chases down all the time. The Mr-Mineif-forgot-theory seems more likely.
Posted by: Michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Sunday, 01 March 2015 at 12:38 AM
I think you have completely mis-read paragraph 377. Heydon is saying that even if you accept what she said in evidence there are still criticisms that have can and have been made of her - that she did not meet the standards she should have met.
What part of that do you think is "arrant" nonsense. The fact that he there and then doesn't say "these criticisms are 100% right" but goes on to consider those criticisms (as though there might be two sides to the story)?
Posted by: Michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Sunday, 01 March 2015 at 12:52 AM
It is possible that Mr Neal's thoughts were something like the following (which I am not saying is correct in law because I don't know): "The required rule is on the record. If the rule is never passed and anyone complains that the association is not abiding by this rule it will be a very simple matter to cancel the Incorporation, on the basis of this correspondence".
Posted by: Michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Sunday, 01 March 2015 at 01:00 AM
Keep digging Michael. :) This is another facet that is beautiful to look at in the scheme of this fraud. Well done. Something strange certainly happened here.
Posted by: Spin Baby, Spin | Sunday, 01 March 2015 at 02:13 AM
"Another question arises from the questions concerning the AWU WRA Inc, is how did the Partners know of the existence of this Association before being made aware of Ms Gillard's personal file containing its papers in the back of a cabinet?"
Maybe because after Wilson had come to Murphy, Murhpy asked Gillard whether the firm had done any work for Wilson. Or Wilson mentioned it to Murphy when he sought advice.
Posted by: Michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Sunday, 01 March 2015 at 08:43 PM
"Has it occurred to your legal mind that Mr Manief could not possibly have provided a statement, if he had NOT actually been interviewed ??"
Yes, something like that did indeed occur to me.
Posted by: Michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Sunday, 01 March 2015 at 08:47 PM
When did Wilson go to Murphy and what for??
Where is the evidence that suggested that??
So what advice was Wilson going to Murphy for??
Murphy was Julia's mentor when she started at he firm.
Please give me a memory refresher where this info came from..
Posted by: Michelle Two | Sunday, 01 March 2015 at 09:13 PM
"There have been rumours about the TURC..."
This report by Lucille Keen in the Australian Financial Review 3 days ago seems to have gone under the radar.
If true, it will have repercussions on the future of the TURC.
(Unfortunately, report is behind a pay wall).
LABOR FEEDS VICTORIA TO ITS LABOR MATES:
During its three months in power the new Victorian Labor government has implemented five policies that directly benefit unions and is considering a law that would allow it to alter the scope of royal commissions, INCLUDING THE ONE IN TO TRADE UNIONS initiated by the federal government. (My caps)
Since being elected on November 29 the government has abolished the state’s building code, introduced legislation to drop move-on laws at picket lines, declared a public holiday on Easter Sunday, has said it will not adhere to the 2.5 per cent wages limit of the previous government and abolished drug and alcohol testing on building sites…
THE GOVERNMENT'S APPROACH TO THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRADE UNIONS ALSO HANGS IN THE BALANCE, with suggestion it will fold the unit established within the Department of Premier and Cabinet that was established to deal with the inquiry. It is also suggested the government will resubmit its submission to the inquiry after the current submission was devised by the former government and requested the CFMEU be deregistered.
This week it will introduce legislation to change the Parliamentary Committees and Inquiries Act in which relevant letters patent can be “updated”, potentially allowing the terms of reference for the royal commission to be changed or refuse for the inquiry to be lengthened.
Posted by: marg of nambour | Monday, 02 March 2015 at 12:30 AM
S&G were the solicitors AWU WA branch and AWU Vic branch at the time. If Wilson mentioned it to Murphy or Murphy found out from Gillard, would not Murphy have a duty to report the existence of this association to the relevant branch or the AWU national office?
Regardless neither happened according to Murphy in his statement to TURC.
The partners became aware of the existence of the AWU WRA as a result of Julia Gillard's involvement in the conveyance of 85 Kerr St, Fitzroy. A conveyance which she had denied any involvement in and the S&G paperwork of which now does not reflect any AWU WRA involvement because the trust ledger has been altered to remove the AWU WRA name from it.
In his Statement to TURC, Murphy stated -
"3.4 As I recall, I first became aware of the existence of the AWU WRA in the weeks between 8 August and early September 1995 after I had ceased to act for Wilson as I explain below at paragraph 5.6, and as concerns began to be aired by some partners of the firm about Julia Gillard's involvement in the conveyance of the property at 85 Kerr St, Fitzroy. At the same time rumours were circulating that some of Julia Gillard's home renovations had been paid for by the AWU."
It would seem from Murphy's statement, that S&G have some questions to answer!!!
Posted by: seeker of truth | Monday, 02 March 2015 at 12:47 AM
The answers to your questions are to be found in Murphy's statement to TURC -
Posted by: seeker of truth | Monday, 02 March 2015 at 12:49 AM
Thanks seeker xx
Posted by: Michelle Two | Monday, 02 March 2015 at 07:06 AM
M(TDAS). It was Wilson who approached Gillard and four years too late, she finally "discovered" a conflict of interest.
From that stage on, all the fraudsters realised the game was up. Self-protection became the catch-word for S & G partners, Union officials and all others involved, and in particular for Gillard trying to salvage some hopes for her burning "whatever it takes" ambition of political career.
10/9/14 (9) Page 846 J.E.Gillard (Mr.Stoljar)
(On events around July/August 1995.)
29. Q. Yes, because Mr.Wilson came to you first did he not?
30-31. A ...Yes, that's right. I received some instructions from Mr.Wilson.
33. Q And you declined to act for him?.
34. A. I referred him to Mr.Murphy. I thought that was the appropriate course of conduct.
37. Q. Why did you regard that as the appropriate course of conduct?
39. A. I thought, given the nature of what he was telling me that it was a more appropriate matter for Mr.Murphy, given our personal relationship.
43. Q. Did you regard yourself as in a position of conflict between a duty that you might owe to him, personally by reason of his being your client in respect of the association and the duties that you owed to the AWU by reason of they being Slater & Gordon's client?
1. A. You have made an assumption in that question Mr.Stoljar which isn't right. The instructions that Mr.Wilson provided me were about the Members Welfare Fund and it was having received those instructions that I referred him to Mr.Murphy.
11. Q. That may be so, that he gave you instructions about the Members Welfare Account. But in any event, he had been your client in his personal capacity in relation to the Association matter?
15. A. Yes, but in my mind at that time, receiving those instructions, there was no connection between the two.
38. Q. When Mr. Wilson first approached you about this matter, was he talking to you in the context of his relationship with you? Was he seeking out your legal advice?
42. A. When Mr. Wilson came to discuss with me the Members Welfare Account, he came to Slater & Gordon. He was raising it with me in my capacity as a solicitor. I felt uncomfortable about acting on the matter; I referred it to Mr.Murphy.
More than passing strange that not one of the S & G solicitors saw fit to do their duties as officers of the court to report any of this to either the AWU they knew were investigating, or to any other appropriate official, despite their knowing a fraud had taken place.
The fact the Jonathan Rothfield managed S & G mortgage arm had placed a condition on the $150,000 85 Kerr St., mortgage, that it could not be repaid within three years, may well have played a large part in that joint decision to stay 'silent'.
Posted by: hillbilly33 | Monday, 02 March 2015 at 12:03 PM
Hi HB, Thanks for your evidence based arguments. I wasn't aware of the condition that the mortgage could not be repaid within three years. Therefore, it was no coincidence that the Kerr Street property was sold March 1996 being three years after its purchase. Someone involved in the sale was aware of that mortgage condition which I would expect would have attracted a penalty if repaid early.
Posted by: seeker of truth | Monday, 02 March 2015 at 11:53 PM
Michael Smith did indeed interview Reay Neal and if I recall, he said he has no memory of ever writing or signing this letter.
MPS, where is that interview for all to see, please post it again.
Posted by: Roger | Thursday, 13 September 2018 at 10:35 PM
George Orwell knew what he was talking about in the end of 1984:
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – FOREVER."That is what We the PEOPLE have to look forward to,come the next election.
Posted by: clive hoskin | Friday, 14 September 2018 at 07:10 AM
I hate to tell you this Mike,but they are ALL tared with the same brush.You know,people keep saying that they will be voting for"Bonking Billy Shorton Brains,instead of ScoMo as a protest that the Liberal(sic)party has gone feral.Unfortunately that makes We the PEOPLE pay anyway.And a Donkey vote still goes to either party anyway.I will be researching who will benefit ME well before I go to the polling booth and I can guarantee that the Uni-Party will NOT benefit at all!!!!!
Posted by: clive hoskin | Friday, 14 September 2018 at 07:22 AM
So, next on the to-prosecute list is Vic Police Fraud Squad for attempted suborning of perjury by forging a statement by Mr Mineif, a statement Mr Mineif never made?
Posted by: Michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Friday, 14 September 2018 at 11:19 AM
Roger, here's my transcript of the interview with Ray Neal, of which you speak.
RN .. what I do know is I didn’t write the letter, and that’s for sure but, cause it’s not even my, the way I phrase letters, y’know. It looks like it’s been done by a solicitor meself, you know that’s why I said Gary (bleep) did it. Especially the last paragraph ..
MS Well the last paragraph hang on a sec [Michael Smith here advances his theories, while Ray Neal says "yeah um"]
RN: There’s two things. One, I didn’t write the letter because I never sign my name just Ray Neal any way, you know. All my letters are done Ray R P Neal so and then the way, you know you’re talking about twenty four years ago, but I don’t think I .. well I know I don’t sorta phrase letters like that, the way that’s been done so I didn’t sorta do that letter
MS: OK, one last question Ray, if you don’t mind. Um ah, would you have incorporated an association on the condition it changes its rules thirty days down the track
RN: Ah no, definitely not, I’d .. that done first you know, so that’s the third thing un…
MS: Mate, sorry. You go first.
RN: Unless on legal advice, I was told to do it, I wouldn’t do it, but I like I said. Most of the legal advice with respect to associations was done by Ralph. He’d handle that little section there you know.
MS: I have spoken to Ralph, and Ralph is um, and Ralph is um, he sounds certain that it went up to the Minister’s office and ah that as a result of a direction from the minister the commissioner, which was you acting at the time, signed it or incorporated it. Does that ring any bells at all.
RN: No, not at all. Some, you know, some were referred to the Minister but ah certainly I wouldn’t have referred it, um, it’d have to be through, to start off through with legal advice, you know
MS: Yeah, yeah
RN: but it does it certainly, that last para, the way it’s phrased looks like it’s done by a solicitor, you know. That’s my interpretation of it anyway.
MS: If I can, screaming out for attention to me. If I could um ask you in a non-leading way, I’m trying to think of how to phrase the question. If it was a solicitor who wrote it, um, were you aware of a solicitor in your office who would make the error of calling it a Commission?
RN: No, not really but that (bleep) would have been the one who usually handled those but I presume it was that time. They may have called it a Commission you know, but it’d be unlikely …
Posted by: Michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Friday, 14 September 2018 at 11:27 AM
It's quite certain that Carmen has forgotten, just as she has forgotten everything else. Lousy memory and all that. She did a PhD on it.
Posted by: macumazan | Friday, 14 September 2018 at 03:03 PM