Moira Deeming defamation trial - Thread 2 from Australia

[TheSandgroper]

Thread 1 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5167282-in-australia-moira-deeming-defamation-trial-now-on?page=40&reply=138525746

Tribunal Tweets Substack https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/moira-deeming-v-john-pesutto-a-case?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share. Thanks to @BezMills

Thanks to everyone on thread 1. I am pleased it generated such interest and conversations. I have learnt a lot from many very bright women.

JP "may" survive the defamation case but his political career is toast.

I’ve only watched about 25mins of proceedings so far today but I hate Bach. He’s a slimy slick liar/bullshitter just like Pesutto. No wonder he was part of the leadership team.

Today instead of Your Honour it’s Counsel. Drink every time you hear it. You’ll be drunk very quickly.

This Bach guy seems incredibly arrogant and very defensive. He's so nervous, it's coming across like he is very guilty and has something to hide.

Twitter is tearing him apart. Search for #DeemingvPesutto

Bach's performance on the witness stand is excruciating. He's an utter pompous prig.

Loved how the judge has slapped him down a few times, where he's tried to take charge of the direction of the questioning, as if he's deigning to, or tolerating the silly woman lawyer asking him questions, and pompously telling her she would no doubt be getting to certain evidence at some point. His contempt of women is literally dripping out of him. Clearly we should know our place.

Between him and pitiful Pesutto, you couldn't get better real time, live, evidence of purity spirals being applied to certain people and tone policing in action. Of courrrrrsssse it's ok for the little women to come out from the kitchen and air their views, it's just howwwwww they're saying it....

The crux of the matter, for this party and these utter misogynistic bores, appears to be - mustn't upset the LGBT community in anyway, perceived or otherwise, anything said by the media is gospel, ditto Wikipedia and all the women by their very nature of being a woman, are liars and can't be trusted!

Clarification, I'm quoting that Bach keeps repeating about the LGBT community and the damage to his / the Liberal Party, of the press reporting the uppity women, daring to be speaking publicly about anti-trans women's rights issues, and how this will be offending them and the party can't be associated with that, but of course we know he's not actually referring to the LGB.

So far in all my reading of this story I’ve not understood why he went after Moira.As in what is it she did that made him want to expel her from the party. Here you mention being disobeyed. Can someone tell me what she did to him that was so bad he wanted to expel her?

My opinion: She didn’t expand her focus to issues beyond sex based rights for women, and child safeguarding. She was told to expand her focus because of bad publicity and the Libs desire to be viewed favourably for the next election.

He’s finished. He had a plane to catch. Court resumes early at 9:30am tomorrow. That’s to give extra time to question Southwick in light of the upcoming Jewish holiday.

Another drinking game: every time Bach said Ma’am, take a drink. You’ll either pass out drunk or get alcohol poisoning and need your stomach pumped. He was alternating between Counsel and Ma’am but to me Ma’am sounded disrespectful.

I missed about an hour of today because I had to go to a medical appointment. I don’t think I missed much other than Crysanthou continuing to dissect him and expose his hypocrisy and lies. Lies that he refers to as misspeaking.

That’s it, he did all of that effort to expel her for that. Was she a good politician. Was she popular, well liked.

i remember at the time of KJK being over there being shocked at the portrayal of KJK. My view was Australia was totally captured to trans mania, to the point of hating any woman who pointed out the dangers of trans.

What do you mean you got the thread hidden?

As regards reporting, I have the distinct impression it’s you did reporting, I had one of my posts to you deleted. The other ladies on here have been here a long while, they prefer to argue their case rather than pathetic reporting. Many of us have been years trying to get others to see the dangers of puberty blockers, the insanity of hormones and surgery, the lunacy of affirming children to believe in dangerous nonsense.

And we quietly do it out there in the real world too, in our jobs, using whatever influence we have.

This craze is ending, but too many have destroyed themselves.

My normal live tweeters appear to have lost interest so I'm reliant on media
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/exiled-mp-should-have-run-when-nazis-crashed-rally/ar-AA1rv79y

This made me laugh:
Dr Bach denied the group ganged up on her, instead insisting the meeting had been "perfectly fair".

"I had more robust conversations with 11 year olds most weeks than this," he told the court.

I have hidden the thread.
Someone has been reporting me because I had an email from MN saying they would suspend my account for "personal attacks". I've no desire to get banned, so I'm not getting as involved in the debate as I was. I'm still following the trial and occasionally catching up on the thread though.

Alternatively you could stop the personal attacks,

Thanks for the updates and analysis @FeralWoman and @Crafting1Queen, much appreciated! I haven't been able to follow live since the middle of last week.

Same here, thank you!

The fact you're both getting exactly the same impression is very reassuring.

I know it's tricky to discern, but do you think someone without our vested interest would be getting the same impression? Ie is it perfectly obvious to everybody how slippery and sexist they are?

I think so. Especially because being slippery and avoiding the question is behaviour the general public particularly hate in politicians.

Funny that no-one seems to have had a word, after seeing Pesutto.
Or maybe they think it's going great?

When you consider the testimony of witnesses in Allison Bailey's trial, the OU witnesses in Joe Phoenix's & Rachel Meade's tribunals, there's a common thread of lack of insight, integrity and often honesty. Presumably it's a feature amongst misogynists and those who dislike women speaking?

I agree. Their attitude to women appears completely representative of their character in general.

cut and paste - Matthew Bach's session. Apologies for the formatting. I have taken it from
drive.google.com/file/d/1DQaVokL9fVz6Bo17bDzKGFiir9E8M1Jh/view

[Matthew Bach takes witness stand. He confirms affidavit and signatures}
SC: You're a practising Christian?
MB: Yes

SC: You believe in importance of religion ?
MB: Very much
SC: When you were an MP you were concerned with importance of rights and assistance re religious leaders?
MB: Yes
SC: In particular you spoke about the importance of ability and rights of parents to seek counsel support and assistance when faced with difficult questions about their children's sexuality and gender ID?
MB: I remember making some comments yes
SC: You opposed laws that infringed parents , med professionals, religious leaders and teachers to assist consenting indicating in transition?
MB: Yes
SC: You did not consider your statements or views to equate to being anti trans?
MB: No it's not
SC: You did not consider speaking out for rights of certain groups eg parents and children to equate with being bigoted with other groups like trans people?
MB: I hope none of my public states could be construed that way
SC: You didn't think that arguing for safe spaces for women equates to anti trans?
MB: No
SC: As a general matter seeking to protect the rights of one group did not equate with bigotry against another?
MB: I suppose depends how that's done but no. One can argue for one group in a careful and appropriate way
SC: You understood as a legislator that determining rights and laws there's a balance for different groups?
MB: Yes
SC: And may have resulted in groups not being 100% happy?
MB: Yes
SC: You engaged with MD with 2022 for first time?
MB: Yes
SC: And you attended a rally to support her?
MB: Yes
SC: Her candidacy and candidates in western region ?
MB: Yes
SC: That was important wasn’t it?
MB: Yes it was organised by MD
SC: You came in 2020 by way of someone retiring. Yes?
MB: Yes a casual vacancy
SC: You heard MD speech on 21st Feb?
MB: Which?
SC: Maiden speech?
MB: And you thought it was amazing?
SC: No
MB: Powerful?
SC: Yes and also problematic
MB: Amazing and powerful?
SC: Yes but also elements that were problematic. We'll come to it.
MB: Do you remember sending her a msg shortly after her speech?
SC: No
MB: I'll show you. I suggest you said to MD
[Shows msg saying 'amazing and powerful speech']
[MB agrees if he sent it he sent it]
SC: I put to you, you didn't think any problematic elements until 18th March?
MB: I refute that

SC: Your concerns were children and protection. Because of your experience as a teacher?
MB: I was a previous advisor for Child Protection, think that linked to previous leader.
SC: Also linked to views you’d expressed about Child protection? You were known as
someone who had strong views on child protection?
MB: Definitely
SC: MD spoke on International Women’s Day 8th March?
MB: Yes
SC: You heard her promote LWS?
MB: Yes
SC: You knew she was attending?
MB: I heard her say that
SC: That she was promoting?
MB: Not in the way I understand. It was a normal thing for councillors to talk about upcoming events and no idea she had such strong connection to the event
SC: Did you make any enquires as to LWS movement?
MB: No
SC: Did you know anything about LWS?
MB: No
SC: Did you discuss any members of leadership team?
MB: I did hear her say that in the house when we were sitting.
SC: You had heard in or out of parliament other members of parliament mention they were
going to public rallies?
MB: Yes
SC: Not unusual?
MB: No however particularly in our party, after lockdown that if one attended a rally it was
that MOP responsibility to ensure what occurred was no reputational risk
SC: When you talk about lockdown it’s before MD?

MB: Yes but I remember convos after MD election where we spoke at length at need for discipline
SC: I suggest there was never any convo with MD present where it was suggested MoPs needed to take any special measures in attending?
MB: You’d have to define special measures
SC: What do you mean by discipline?
MB: Several things JP spoke about on 19th March. Team will decide in key things but all members had a duty to focus on. But bulk of activities should be focussed on what ppl of Victoria really care about. Does that answer?
SC: Think so. There was no specific mention of attending rallies?
MB: I'd be certain of that
SC: You knew MD advocated sex based rights?
MB: Yes
SC: You understood that was something MD wished to pursue?
MB: Yes but in my interactions with MD that she had an understanding and advised all sorts
of issues other than Sex Based Rights that she needed to focus on
SC: Suggested she needed broader interest?
MB: Yes
SC: Were you aware she had sought out from JP advice and guidance as to how to beat
advocate her interest in Sex Based Rights?
No. I was aware ongoing convos with MD about how she might continue to argue for things important to her while being member of the team
SC: Source of your info in Mrs Crozier?
MB: Yes
SC: You understood what miss Crozier said that she had attempted to advise MD and MD had rebuffed those attempts?
MB: Yes
SC: You relied on that forming views on 19th march?

MB: I do rely on an interaction. She sought me out and said sorry and said it'd be last time. She was really clear on the manner she needed to focus on. The issues were important and she had done appropriately she thought
SC: You relied on Crozier assertion she had attempted to assist MD and MD rebuffed?
MB: No, I understood there was ongoing convos. I understood both from meeting and paragraph 9 that MD had a clear understanding
SC: Would it have been relevant for you to know in run up to meeting that MD had sought from JP on more than one occasion and JP had not found time to speak to her?
MB: No it was clear MD had very clear understanding when she was being a team player.
No
SC: Suggest you have given evidence about para 9 is out of context. Agree
MB: No
SC: In fact you understood MD to be telling you that was the last women's rights event of the year she was raising?
MBL Thought in reference to maiden speech. (explains context)
[Link gone]
SC: Where you’re referring to stated position of the party - is that a focus on issues that would propel to win next election?
MB: More than that I was concerned about MD maiden speech and deeply concerned in comments of MD’s close associates on March 18th that we through MD were not being careful enough to make sure that lgbt community knew we saw and respected them
SC: At this time you were in upper house?
MB: Deputy leader
SC: Behind Mrs Crozier
MB: Yes
SC: Prior to IWD speech did you sit down with MD and have convo about how best to advocate Sex Based Rights as part of the broader motives of team?
MB: No but prior to IWD we had maiden speech and in party room MD said how
disapproving I looked after IWD but I was comfortable that MD sought me out

Judge: What was it MD said on IWD that was out of order?
Mb: I thought on meeting of 19th that unfortunately after the speech we were coming back to these themes in a such strident way. I did look at transcript and through her we didn't have lgbt at heart
SC: Is it because she raised it stridently?
MB: It was two fold. Concerned we'd see a pattern of a lack of focus on her part of the issues the team was to focus on. I remember being troubled with the stridency and delivery. Kept being raised by lgbt community which was politically problematic
SC: She didn’t say anything which departed from things she said in past?
MB: I'm not sure. I sought out MD as I suspected first question rightly would be for MD and about her views. Think exact comment that was on Joy FM was that Safe School Program had been devised by paedophile apologists and of course that is such a trope for lgbt. Was put to me she said that so not sure if they were in keeping with previous speeches
SC: The convo you just refer to you mention in para 10. You knew about interview and
sought her out regarding her views?
MB: I sought her out so she was comfortable with my response
SC: Did you understand her position on this?
No. I said to her please dont just accept whats put to you in the meeting.
SC: You ignored the question in the interview ?
MB: I don't know
SC: Re para 10 you knew by March 2024 she had well known views on safe spaces for women?
MB: Yes
SC: And shared views of freedom of religion with you?
MB: Some yes
SC: You asked her views on adoption of kids by homosexual parents?
MB: Separate question. I was keen to loosen restrictions around lgbt for adoption.
SC: She told you when it wasn't possible to have parents she had no problem with that
MB: Yes

SC: Lib party had previously voted against adoption of kids by homosexuals?
MB: I thought that was amendment not opposed. Some members sought to amend legislation to exclude some faith based orgs
SC: That's right. Lib party concerned lack of exception for faith?
MB: Yes
SC: In 2016. One of ppl who expressed concern about faith based adoption was JP
MB: Wasn't aware
SC: It was considered important to win election that child protection remained an
important issue?
MB: Party rooms plan not leadership but child protection always important but particularly
to me
SC: Members had all sorts of issue they were interested in they'd advocate for?
MB: Yes
SC: Not policy to discourage members from exercising FOS on issues they felt important?
MB: We need to be united team and particularly on issues that'd put us in best possible position. certainly noted members would have particular views and particular questions. JP expressed that clearly in party room
SC: How long were you member of Liberal Party?
MB: Since 2006
SC: You have understanding of foundation of LP : rights of individial FOS and FOA?
MB: Yes
SC: Party embraced members entitlement to cross floor?
MB: Yes
SC: Your understanding that party room policy was Victoria parliamentary party and should not seek to limit exercise those basic rights?
MB: Party room constitution talks clearly about action against members when brought into disrepute. Believe in FOS but people can't say anything. Believe in inherent worth of everyone. Expectation members adhere to this. We mustn't bring party into disrepute

SC: Thinking back to your knowledge of Victoria Parliamentary Party- can you recall many instances of party members engaging in many instances that are not ideal?
MB: Not ideal Yes. High bar to reach stage of bringing party into disrepute. I'm sure we'll come to this.
Judge: If we come to it we cone to it. You don't have to anticipate it
SC: Eg. One member calling female MP a barking dog.- disrepute?
MB: Yes I'm sure
SC: That person wasn't sanctioned?
MB: Can't recall that
SC: You can't recall that?
MB: No I can't
SC: You were asked a Question in your affidavit. Para 11 about safe schools. Did you have any knowledge in your experience as a teacher as to origins of safe school?
MB: Yes. When I was at Carey grammar.
SC: Formulated Le trobe uni?
MB: Yes
SC: Aware dep director of unit has written lengthy article about paedophilia?
MB: No
SC: Aware Deputy director stated the love of children equates with love of parent?
MB: No
SC: Aware this person wrote article asking how [reads]?
MB: No
SC: Were you aware Le Trobe director suggested many mothers and fathers agree children are sexual and generate sexual response from parents. Cuddling kissing fondling kids - not uncommon to be sexually aroused?
MB: No

SC: Would you consider a person who wrote those comments could be described as paedophile apologist?

MB: Those comments are odious so yes but also aware language like that to brand as paedo apologists - in absence of strong info is politically toxic
SC: If it were the case that MD had called one of the people a paedophile apologist and her info that director had published those words you would wany to understand that context?
MB: It was put to me that MD had called them paedo apologist plural.
SC: As a teacher – English?
MB: Mainly politics
SC: You agree that a single quote from a person needs to be taken in context?
MB: Yes of course
SC: Having regard to fact that MD had long held views you agree it would be fair to her if you had a concern about a quote to discuss with her an understand context?
MB: Had a discussion with her before.
SC: You observe from time to time MoP saying “I don't agree with her views but free to express” Did you say that?
MB: I don't think are you going to tell me I did
SC: Would it be fair to respond to questions about MD when they didn't know the views she held?
MB: I think so. I did understand a range of MD views.
[Asking about freedom to hold views]

Will do another post to continue

Clearly I'm not intending to. I try very hard to stay within the guidelines. Anyway it's now reached a point where I can only make very bland statements so that's why I'm not posting so much.

[Asking about freedom to hold views] cont
SC: As of March 2023 did you know who Jacinta Price was?
MB: Yes
SC: Senator?
MB: Yes
SC: Were you aware by time you entered meeting on 19th March that Senator Price was
supporter of LWS?
MB: Came up in meeting
SC: Did you know who senator chandler was?
MB: No

SC: That she was supporter of LWS?
MB: No.
SC: Did you follow MD on twitter?
MB: Yes all member of team
SC: Common act?
MB: Yes
SC: Do you recall seeing MD tweets about LWS?
MB: Before rally?
SC: Yes? you didn't notice she put up flyers on SM
MB: I may have but it doesn't stick with me now. MD had spoken at least once about it so heard about it from her
SC: Communications team. you worked with them?
MB: Yes in shadow cabinet roles
SC: In working with them is one role to issue PRs
MB: Yes
SC: Draft and email to press?
MB: No I draft my own
SC: They put on letterhead?
MB: Yes.
SC: Anyone raise it was an anti trans rally?
MB: No
SC: Would you expect them to raise that?
MB: Don't know the unit enough. I never had convos like that.
SC: On 18th March LWS rally - you became aware after it happened. you say neo nazi group attended. Then you say media and Journos. Do you mean traditional papers & tv?
MB: I saw on twitter and noted Journos that I follow had spoken about it.
SC: you don't remember which Journos?

MB: No
SC: Suggest you didn't see traditional media?
MB: May be case
SC: Did you contact anyone on seeing that?
MB: No
SC: Not concerning that you needed to contact someone?
MB: Wouldn't say that. I would expect anyone if they saw neo nazis to run in the opposite direction if neo nazis turned up to a rally I was attending
SC: If neo nazis turned up to pro Israel rally, you wouldn't expect Israel people to leave?
MB: No. Given history of Nazism
SC: What about interrupted by gatecrashers?
MB: No
SC: Your assumption is the nazis were there to say same things as those at rally
MB: They sought to say that...in due course especially when I saw odious tweet by Angie Jones - close associate of MD. I thought massive media issue
SC: Before jumping ahead, focus what I'm asking. Assuption is MD should have left as nazis saying same things as those at rally?
MB: Tone of the rally. Neo nazis with banners talking about paedophilia freaks common trope for trans - media would find strong linkages and massive problem (mentions anti lockdown protests) The Reason I put my name down was she brought party into disrepute utterly unwilling and chief reason put my name on motion
SC: If she had been willing you would not have?
MB: I'd have been willing. I was hopeful we could get to place we could support MD
SC: you hoped MD would agree to distance?
MB: Something like that
SC: JP didn't express that?

MB: I remember meeting - RPL had found what KJK said. Recall him mentioning this may be so bad may he had to think about expulsion. Wanted to find way forward. I was focussed on understanding the discussion
SC: How long?
MB: 30 mins
SC: you don't remember JP saying we should try to get her to sign or expulsion?
MB: Answering directly no but still may find way forward
SC: [Reads 'two outcomes'] you remember ?
MB: In meeting Yes I do and other options.
SC: [Reads '3rd way'] remember ?
MB: Yes
SC: As far as he was concerned only 2 options before the meeting?
MB: No. Deeply deeply concerned it may be necessary to do those steps.
SC: you knew expulsion possible?
MB: Yes
SC: MD not informed?
MB: No was interested to hear from her. For me I was most keen to hear from MD and her understanding of scale of issue considering association with some ppl
SC: Didn't think to inform MD or be able to bring someone?
MB: Not aware of convo of invite
[Screen gone - plays tape]
SC: you can't say MD was treated with kid gloves?
MB: I can. MD given every opp. She regularly spoke over JP. Meeting conducted
appropriately from what I heard
SC: He made opening remarks lengthy. Sounded like a speech?
MBL Wasn't a speech. Right time for his concerns to be communicated
SC: Sort of speech at party conference?

MB: No
SC: Unusual way to conduct yourself with colleagues?
MB: No
SC: Are you saying that the women who were there to speak who had been silenced in what
they had to say because of an offensive group of men who turned up?
MB: No. An MoP should see a massive prob that arises when actual neo nazis come to a rally you have helped organised and aggravated trans activists, it’s beyond me
SC: As matter of principle do you think women should shut up because offensive of men wearing black?
MB: Course not.
SC: any idea what women were speaking about?
MB: Not before meeting
SC: Were you aware what the women were saying?
MB: Which point?
SC: At rally. Tell us what they were talking about?
MB: Range of sex based issues you described
SC: Consistent with neo nazi views?
MB: Course not
SC: Para 14 you became aware of banner nazi group holding. Do you not think it was misleading to connect that banner with evidences of what MD allegedly said about safe schools?
MB: Misleading no. I was very concerned neo nazis using homophobic trope when similar language had been attributed to MD. More concerned colleague used similar language in a tweet. Concerned what MD’s associates had done
SC: I'm asking about para 14. Misleading to connect what you had been told what MD said about Safe Schools about neo nazi signs?
MB: Having spoke to LGBT that's a trope used on day and attributed to MD
SC: But not as trans LGBTQ+ supporters?

MB: Yes in Joy interview it was very clear those who put together SS were trans or lgbt supporters. Language alleged used by MD.
SC: You say you considered big problem?
MB: [Reads his statement para 14]
SC: You didn't know what LWS group were advocating for?
MB: Yes I'd seen tweet from AJ
SC: I'm talking about 17th March. Before you'd heard of AJ?
MB: Heard about it on 18th
SC: Where?
MB: Media
SC: Your saying you saw media reports about AJ?
MB: No
SC: You hadn't heard of AJ until you saw that clip in meeting?
MB: May have been the case
SC: Suggesting you had no idea what LWS group were advocating for on 18th March?
MB: Don't accept one bit. Saw reports about what was said and that was an anti trans rally. I was concerned about MD prior use of language and negative impact on LGBT community.
SC: So you heard it described as anti trans?
MB: Yes
SC: But women didn't describe it as anti trans?
MB: Lots of refs to issues you outline. I had same concerns as what was said on the day as when MD spoke on the issues. My main problem was with the other associations not the women. Principle concern was linkage of MD to stated views of others. Wasn't what women might have said at rally.
SC: In para 15 you say nazis are there to support women?
MB: I was aware of reporting from good sources who had described rally as anti trans and those views solidified when I saw tweet by AJ and found out some things KJK had done

SC: You had no basis to give evidence that on March 18 you understood LWS were advocating same thing as nazis which was namely anti trans
MB: I did. I saw the banner with homophobic trope. Similar lang attributed to MD. Aware of reporting form reputable journos describing as anti trans. Became aware of more info on Sunday
SC: None of the women were describing trans as paedophiles.
MB: No I became aware of that with tweet from AJ next day
[SC suggests again he didn't know of AJ before the meeting. MB saying he could have seen it on Twitter. So he saw one tweet but not the rest of the tweets? MC objects and confusion about the date.]
SC: On 19th did you know that more recent tweets are higher up on person account ?
MB: Yes
SC: If you had seen that tweet you'd have seen more recent tweets from AJ?
MB: Not necessarily . I didn’t follow her on twitter -I’d never heard of her. Deeply incendiary nature of the tweet would have been shared more I dare say. May be possible that tweet had greater prominence
SC: You give evidence what you recall in para 17. you had no convo until miss Crozier.

Accept you weren't so concerned as you didn't contact any of them
MB: True. Not aware of linkages at this point
SC: On sun 18th March you got a call from Mrs Crozier about necessity of meeting. Then
spoke to RPL when?
MB: Don't know
[SC moves to para 19. Now taking about logistics of meeting and shape of table and seating
plan. MB explains who was sitting where. JP and MD on a table. JP on MD left Crozier on MD
right. Left to JP was DS then Lopez then me. They clarify the seating plan. MB suggests
drawing it. He draws]
SC: You didn't see DS turn on recording device?
MB: No
SC: Do you remember hearing recording turns off. Yu didn't see DS using a device?
MB: No

SC: What about when you returned? you didn’t see DS using a device?
MB: Correct
SC: Would you have expected DS to inform you to tape meeting?
MB: Yes
SC: When did you find out?
MB: 10th Sept this month and that I should call him and he informed me there was a tape
SC: Your reaction?
MB: One sense surprised. Was first day in Parliament and friend wanted to take me to lunch and Mr batlier impressed upon me in LP many things are taped. I was never surprised to learn meetings were taped, numerous examples of time in party room when taped

Judge: surreptitiously or open??
MB: Surreptitiously. I wasn't stunned but was surprised.
SC: you didn't expect him to do that
MB: That's right
SC: And one issue on dispute is what happened at that meeting. you read MD affidavit
MB: Yes in fact I read so many inaccuracies in MDs -
Judge - just stick with questions
SC: Are you here to criticise MD as much as possible as you sit in witness box?
MB: Certainly not
SC: You understood initial dispute was what was said at that meeting?
MB: Yes
SC: In those circumstances were you surprised about the tape?
MB: Yes
SC: Have you spoken to anyone about that since meeting?
MB: No exchanged text msgs with the 3 and since learning info on 10th Sept JP had tried exchange.
SC: Did msgs concern MD?

MB: Don't think so. Simply perfunctory
SC: Did you consider when you heard tape - you did say another meeting was taped what was that?
MB: First meeting where we discussed minutes of expulsion.
SC: you think there’s tape recording of March 27th?
MB: Yes if that's meeting where minutes were leaked. Minutes were so accurate that it was commonly thought that was result of a recording. Other examples of meeting surreptitiously taped eg when colleagues got in a barney. I'm never that surprised meetings are taped
SC: Para 20 is about that meeting before MD arrived. Suggest at no time prior to that meeting Did you become aware of any material you list in para 20
MB: May be correct. I may have seen tweet before that. Vast bulk was new to me at meeting correct
Judge - before you go on, is the ref to 27d - beg your pardon- sorry - is 20b meant to be included as not read?
SC: Think that's later para graph

Judge - sorry to interrupt
SC: you had strong reaction when read AJ meeting?
MB: Yes
SC: you would have communicated feelings to someone?
MB: No we were about to have meeting. Can't recall seeing tweet before meeting.
SC: you weren't shown any of these things by RPL?
MB: There were print outs.
SC: Barbie doll image described to you
MB: All these things were shown to us
SC: You were not shown or told about pride stapo image?
MB: We were
SC: suggest First time was following day?

MB: I don't think that's right.
SC: you think paper printed out that you were shown?
MB: Yes
SC: Not shown to anyone in subsequent meeting with MD?
MB: I thought MD was shown. I noted her comments in her affidavit but hearing tape solidified she was shown them
SC: We have heard the tape and we didn't hear refs where pinto was asked to read things
out again?
MB: Don't recall
SC: You say in para 21 you asked RPL 'is this absolutely solid? What are you referring to because you tell us in 20 that you were shown material about organisers and speakers including those 3 things. What exactly are you asking is solid?
MB: I wanted to be certain that the matters we put to MD in that meeting were verified. Other matters discussed of course some of her associates having had interviews with certain ppl. On every matter I was informed about I specifically recall asking that question if solid
SC: Did you ask to see any underlying material from where info came?
MB: No
SC: Was it drawn to attention source was Wikipedia?
MB: No
SC: Sure about that?
MB: I don't recall. I do recall it had been straightforward for pintos to get their hands on this info and gathered from online search.
SC: Were you shown any articles where material discussed?
MB: Yes. I was shown article that was included
SC: Did you read the article?
MB: Yes
SC: Is that the article with KJK next to gripe. Pink news?

MB: Yes
SC: Another article from National. Remember?
MB: No
SC: We're you provided with Pink News article in meeting?
MB: No can't recall. Put down these 4 points. I recall more material and I wanted to ask specifically to Pintos and JP whether we were absolutely solid
SC: On para 22 you give evidence of further info you were told about. you were MD took KJK
through car park?
MB: Yes
SC: And in 22B had you at that point seen MDs tweet that went out after she spoke to Ds?
MB: I presume I had as at this point in my life I spent more time looking at Twitter than doing almost anything else. Learned more about that in the meeting.
[Shows tweet - 'disappointed with victoria police' put out March 18th 6.30pm. MB says he
saw tweet before meeting.]
SC: You agree it informed you a bunch of masked men had come into buffer zone and
terrified women?
MB: That's what it says
SC: you understood MD was saying that - did you understand masked men reference to nazis?
MB: Yes
SC: And MD effectively saying they gatecrashed?
MB: I understood the meaning
SC: You understood TRA as trans rights activists?
MB: Yes
SC: And MD saying police walked nazis past as they did horrible salute. Remember?
MB: Yes remember reading the tweet
SC: MD wasn't happy about nazi presence?
MB: Yes

SC: You understood she saw nazi salute as police walked them passed?
MB: Yes feature of discussion on 19th
SC: She said nazi salute horrible publicly?
MB: Yes
SC: You understood that red emoji denotes angry person?
MB: Yes
SC: Fair to say you understood MD had made public she considered masked men an infiltration of rally and engaged in horrible conduct?
MB: Yes
SC: you didn't think critically of her for issuing tweet?
MB: No was interested in exchange of MD and ds in meeting and need for broader statement. MD hadn't discussed this tweet at this point and took that MD acknowledged she hadn't fully done what had been discussed
SC: you aware about joint press release?
MB: Now I can't recall but sure saw at time
SC: Given their roles do you consider that was appropriate response of LP?
MB: Very
SC: you didn't think every MP needed to make statement?
MB: No
SC: you agree?
MB: Yes
[Para 22c about video. [Reads]
SC: Did you watch the video in meeting?
MB: Yes only part
SC: Not whole thing?
MB: Only part
SC: Do you know which part?

MB: Yes. Part that demonstrated the veracity - don't remember seeing video with these quotations. Do recall seeing what described at certain.
SC: Did the video stop and start?
MB: Potentially
Judge: potentially?
MB: Can't recall
SC: Did you at any point watch full video?
MB: Yes
SC: Before dossier?
MB: Can’t say for certain
SC: So not familiar with full context when MD arrived to speak to you?
MB: Yes. What most concerned me was linkages of MD to people who are anathema to party
SC: Do you recall being shown part where women described lack of interactions with nazis?
MB: Don't recall
SC: When they talked about parliamentary reps?
MB: No
SC: Where TRAs were violent and punched horses?
MB: Yes. May have been before or after meeting.
SC: Do you recall being shown a part where MD said she was injured ?
MB: No
SC: Other women injured?
MB: Yes
SC: Where MD first noticed men was when they walked off?
MB: Not sure if from video or comments from meeting

(to be cont)

SC: Did you hear MD say wearing black and no insignia?
MB: Yes
SC: No reason to disbelieve MD?
MB: Based on what I'd seen in footage and broad account she gave no reason to disbelieve - she was very strong in meeting nazis arrived late. I suppose you’re right I had no reason but concern was she hadn't left
SC: No footage to contradict that
MB: True
SC: In para 24 is this reference to topic I've already asked about in para 15 where you explained - you didn't by that point 5pm in Sunday about what women were actually saying at rally?
MB: Just let me read it. No no as I say here and the meeting my chief issue was association of MD to KJK and AJ not to other women attending rally made legitimate points they had every right to make.
SC: You’re not suggesting in para 24 you’d heard anything by women's speakers at rally to
form view they had synergy with nazis?
MB: No that's right
SC: Para 25. you recall that on various occasions MD did offer to make public statements of condemnation?
MB: No not regarding KJK and AJ. We had lengthy and frustrating convo about the tweet. I became convinced that MD was utterly unwilling to distance from KJK and AJ
SC: you say at 25a she was unwilling to disavow views ?
MB: Yes
SC: I suggest she was willing to disavow certain views of those 2 women?
{MC objects. SC concedes]
SC: you wished her to disavow their vows you didn't expect her to disavow as ppl?
MB: I hoped she would significant distance between us and them. I was seeking to see understanding from MD of being associated through her and their stated views
SC: And one views was to disavow trans people are paedophiles?

MB: Yes MD was unwilling to see toxicity of that
SC: That was conduct you refer to in 25a re AJ?
MB: I had a huge problem with that tweet and MD was unwilling to utterly unwilling to put distance from her to some of her friends. She's said she'd disavow Nazism and transphobia but that's not what we were talking about
SC: What apparent views are you talking about in 25a?
MB: The ones put to party room in the doc based on matters raised with MD
SC: Going into that meeting what apparent views of KJK and AJ did you wish to give MD the opp to disavow? Asking you please tell his honour which apparent views of KJK and AJ you wanted to disavow?
MB: Certainly context on that tweet also we were troubled by use of nazi symbolism by KJK and suppose the view that shows is on part of KJK is at best total inability to understand how strongly negatively members of the community feel about that sort of thing but then all the other matters discussed at meeting and swastika on pride flag.
SC: Would it have been sufficient to disavow nazis generally then bigotry against trans community and any suggestion they're paedophiles, and disavowing nazi symbolism.
Anything else?
MB: No. Because it was a huge reputational problem for us to be tied with MD’s associates.
Mr Andrews used to regularly say it's the company you keep. Massive problem we were tied tightly to KJK and AJ. Needed to come up with way forward for distance between us and KJK and AJ. Not enough to generally denounce.
SC: But if she specifically denounced imagery would that be sufficient?
MB: May have been. JP wanted to explore other options but I became convinced MD wasn't willing. Furthermore I became deeply concerned MD didn't understand the seriousness of what we were talk about. Worried about constant repetition that had impact on us as a party
SC: Other than one tweet from AJ you remember anything she engaged in you were concerned with?
MB: No
SC: That tweet was made after the rally?
MB: Yes

SC: You didn't expect it was something MD was aware of before rally?
MB: No
SC: What form of words would you have sounded acceptable to satisfy what you say in 25a?
MB: We had lengthy discussion trying to get to this point but as you heard we didn't get anywhere near it. I'm not going to draft anything for you now but if I'd seen anything close to willingness to distant from associates and then need to take strong action we did
SC: No form of words put to her?
MB: That's right
SC: No suggestion even?
MB: Much effort to try and form some words
SC: It's not true from tape that any of the 5 ppl in that room tried to come up with form of words acceptable to leadership team?
MB: If I had felt there was willingness to even talk about form of words and insight into seriousness I would t have support strong action we took. Wasn't necessary to form words in the meeting. What I wanted was to see a willingness to put distance between us and KJK and AJ and understanding if seriousness. I didn't see that.
SC: you agree no press agency had up until the meeting mentioned any other those matters in a, b or C?
MB: May well be right but do recall being told by Johnston that questions were incoming about the linkages
SC: These particular?
MB: No linkages between other organisers
SC: Are you sure Johnson said that?
MB: Yes
SC: Suggest it was irrational to require MD to publicly disavow conduct or matter refered to in para 20 in circumstances she didn't know about until the meeting and media wasn't talking about it?
MB: Disagree entirely. Already been change of behaviour from Premier at an event they attended. To think an organisation as effective as Victorian Labour party wouldn't get this info and use it in devastating way is deeply naive. Deeply toxic If our team could get this info undoubtedly political opponent would use against us. And I note AJ attempts to contextualise but that would mean nothing to Mr Andrews
SC: Noone was making these connections in the media. Those circumstances- it would
have been an own goal for MD to condemn things noone was talking about?
MB: Given huge focus of labour party on ppl who even walked through rallies and find linkages with ppl with odious views. I felt then and now undoubtedly actors in Victorian Labour party would get hands on it. Sought to deal with matter promptly- it'd have been own goal to wait and have it play out.
SC: Wouldn't it have been better to wait to see if anyone said anything?
MB: Felt if we could find info the labour party would find that quickly and use against us
SC: Is it fair to understand your evidence to be, that the four of you in the leadership team were sitting there shaking in fear as to what Dan Andrews might do, and in order to head that off, you handed over my client as the sacrificial lamb for the party
MB: No. I listened for long time. Chief concern some of things put forward by MD associates were odious and Victorian community would think so as well. I was concerned about me being associated with ppl who had said and done these things
SC: Did you have regard to difference between what ppl would say and what the truth was?
MB: Yes
SC: Did you understand that to be important distinction when expelling someone?
MB: Yes
SC: Important to know truth of the matter despite rep concerns before making public statements about MD?
MB: Very much so. Truth of the matter. When it was first put to me I wanted to ask about veracity of info and reassured about that by ppl I trusted. Through listening to MD for so long I was convinced unwilling to distance and failed to grasp seriousness

[Court adjourned]

sorry..Here is an error ( I presume it is a C&P error)

SC: Maiden speech?
MB: And you thought it was amazing?
SC: No
MB: Powerful?
SC: Yes and also problematic
MB: Amazing and powerful?
SC: Yes but also elements that were problematic. We'll come to it.
MB: Do you remember sending her a msg shortly after her speech?
SC: No
MB: I'll show you. I suggest you said to MD
[Shows msg saying 'amazing and powerful speech']
[MB agrees if he sent it he sent it]

I think it should be:

SC: Maiden speech?
And you thought it was amazing?
MB:No
SC: Powerful?
MB: Yes and also problematic
SC: Amazing and powerful?
MB Yes but also elements that were problematic. We'll come to it.
SC: Do you remember sending her a msg shortly after her speech?
MB: No
SC: I'll show you. I suggest you said to MD
[Shows msg saying 'amazing and powerful speech']
[MB agrees if he sent it he sent it]