ABC Media Watch picks wrong ABC domestic violence story to critique
Best Bill editorial since "Shorten's knowledge of money comes from marrying it"

Reader Pegasus asks some potentially revelatory questions

Would anyone like to help the persistent Pegasus out on this one?
 
pegasus said:
 
If the unincorporated association did not exist, then why did Ray Neale grant incorporation status to a non-existent entity? And keep in mind that when he did query Blewitt's application, he was concerned only with likeness to a trade union.
 
Neale did not (apparently) question eligibility to seek incorporation in the first place. And yet, Neale had a statutory obligation to ensure at least the basic eligibility criteria were met.
 
Does this then mean you also regard Neale as a party to the AWU fraud?
 
No doubt you are likely to now say Gillard misled Neale. But misled him about what precisely? About the fundamental eligibility criteria? Or did she mislead him about something quite different?
 
Should not Neale have picked up the ineligibility BEFORE Gillard became involved in her advocacy role?
 
ENDS
 
Here's a little from me to kick off proceedings.
 

I say Gillard went into Dyson Heydon's royal commission with a forged letter purporting to be from Ray Neal, the WA Corporate Affairs Commissioner.

She knew it was a forgery.  And she used it as if it was real. She gave false evidence about the way the AWU WRA was incorporated.  She knew it was false evidence.  She was covering up the truth - which isn't that hard to discover!

Yvonne Henderson, the Minister in Carmen Lawrence's government directed that the AWU WRA Inc be incorporated.

Gillard knows that because she prepared the submission asking for a ministerial review of the commissioner's decision to refuse incorporation.  And her submission included a filing fee of $22 - made out on an AWU WRA Inc cheque!

Screen Shot 2017-03-16 at 1.33.03 am

But instead of "remembering" the truth, she "remembered" receiving a letter which turns out to be a forgery.  It was never sent to her.

She tried to be vague in the Royal Commission

Once again, my view about this is informed by documents.  If I hadn't seen the documents I'm not sure I would have recalled these matters, but it is evident on the documents that some inquiry was made, I presume of Mr Blewitt, about the nature of the Association and whether  or not it was a trade union and that was then referred to me.

She then goes on to give a dubious account of having no memory of "the documents" but treating them (ie the Ray Neal forgery and the memo to Blewitt) as the real deal, which triggered memories of what she "must have done" at the time.

It was over 20 years ago you see.  She's looking for wriggle room so as to avoid the perjury charge she knows she's risking.

Trouble for Ms Gillard is that line is nicely snookered by her own evidence to the Royal Commission:

Q. You have been answering questions about these issues for many years; correct?

A.   I most certainly have, Mr Stoljar.

On 29 November 2012 Ms Gillard held a public press conference and said this:

PM: I dealt with this extensively at the marathon press conference that I did in August and before I answer your question let me just go to some of the issues here about the amount that I've dealt with this on the public record. 

There has been an emerging kind of consensus amongst the media, perhaps egged on by the Opposition, that I need to give a full and frank account of these matters. Let me just remind, I first answered these matters on the public record in 1995, when they were raised by a Liberal Party minister. 

I then dealt with these matters on the public record again in 2001 when they were raised by a Liberal Party backbencher.

I dealt with these matters on the public record in 2006 when I filmed an Australian Story.

I dealt with these matters on the public record in 2007 after the shopping around of a dirt file by persons employed then in the ministerial office of the Liberal Party. 

I dealt with these matters on the public record in a marathon press conference in August, one of the longest prime ministerial press conferences ever held.

I have dealt with these matters at press conferences in Melbourne, in Brisbane.

She dealt with the WA Corporate Affairs matter in the parliament for a week.

As she says, over the years she's regularly gone on the record to explain what went on.

And she's never once "remembered" the forged letter from Ray Neal - until the Royal Commission.

In November 2012 she had McTernan produce this after the reports that said she'd done a lot more than just give advice as a lawyer:

Screen Shot 2017-03-16 at 1.20.46 am

And when Fairfax broke the story that Gillard's initial claim that she only provided advice on the incorporation was false - that she'd argued the case with the WA office of state corporate affairs - she wrote this little number to Greg Hywood.

Screen Shot 2017-03-16 at 1.21.52 amScreen Shot 2017-03-16 at 1.22.09 am

And to quote Kevin Rudd, "You know something?"; not once did she ever mention anywhere that she'd written back to a letter from Ray Neal offering to incorporate if the association promised to make a rule change.  Nor did she mention the memo she now says she sent to Ralph all those years ago.  Nor did she mention anywhere until the Royal Commission Ralph's purported role as the head honcho in getting the rule change up etc etc etc.

In fact, she didn't mention Ralph Blewitt at all in her explanations to Peter Gordon.

Just her and Bruce. And a note from the regulator that said the entity was ineligible for incorporation.  In answer to which she made a submission arguing the case for incorporation.  And sent a $22 cheque made out to the corporate affairs people.  And 2 men from the WA office of state corporate affairs who say the decision to incorporate was made by the minister.  And that the letter Gillard used in her false evidence is a forgery.

So get ready for lots more detail.  Share it with your friends.  Let's get Ray Neal and his offsider Ralph Mineif cleared of the implicit defamatory imputations in Gillard's forgery.

Comments