Thread by @psyclaw

Porter has totally misappropriated the words “Blind Trust”. What he is claiming has nothing to do with blind trusts. He is totally stupid or totally devious or totally arrogant. Probably all three! #auspol. 1/7

For tweeps unfamiliar with blind trusts (BTs). Pollie owns shares. Sets up BT. Manager of BT (the trustee) sells/buys shares but pollie has no involvement or knowledge of this. Trust laws apply. Periodically trustee sends income from shares to pollie who declares it #auspol 2/7

The BT share tradings are blind to the OWNER of the shares. The pollie OWNER of the shares in the BT ie the beneficiary, knows exactly where the periodic income he RECEIVES from the trust comes from. He declares it on the members register “income from my BT”. #auspol. 3/7

BTs are relevant to conflicts of interest. If the Min for Infrastructure has shares in constructn company he’d be conflicted when awarding govt constructn contracts. But if his shares are in BT he has no knowledge of what companies he owns shares in, so no conflict.#auspol 4/7

Porter is BENEFICIARY of income he says comes from a Trust. Trusts are NOT blind to beneficiaries. The money he speaks of comes from a source known to him into some known bank account on his behalf. There is no other mechanism for him to get the money #auspol 5/7

Porter is nonsensically using the words “blind trust” totally out of context, totally out of accord with those words’ meaning, totally mischievously, totally dishonestly, totally calculated to deceive #auspol. 6/7

Porter’s money could come from anywhere …. drug cartel laundering dosh, foreign nationals, people or corps actually trying to “buy” him, proceeds of bank robbery.

Can’t happen. Won’t work. He gives money back. Or this brings him down #auspol. 7/7