must look past asic

Good day again,
Am dusting off after returning from Canberra Tuesday evening.
On the way through Sydney tried to see Deterrence Unit Director, but he shrugged off the request with the usual "leave the documennts, we will get back to you".
I reproduce the "document" here to explain where the matters stand in this, my individual, push.

[[[[[[ Hon. Minister Bill SHORTEN VERY URGENT
PARLIAMENT HOUSE
Canberra ACT M1.48 2600 29 February 2012

Dear Minister,

Re: ASIC Case Management of PIF – Wellington Capital;

My name is Simon Grundel, a Premium Income Fund unit-holder in a group of some 10,500 similarly placed retirees.
We are facing a debilitating and impoverished retirements due, in the main, to the stewardship of our remaining assets in the PIF by current Responsible Entity Wellington Capital.

I have addressed the urgency of my requests to Messes. G. Medcraft, ASIC Chairman; Mr W. Swan, Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer who appointed Mr G. Medcraft and Mr D. Bradbury, Parliamentary Secretary to Mr W. Swan.

I was informed last week while in Canberra, that it is your office that carries responsibility for ASIC performance and related matters of Supervision and Overview.
Accordingly, I have requested and was received by 2 members of your staff, Daniel and Liz, who requested that I send crucial correspondence to your office.
I appreciate the opportunity and courtesy of your office staff to meet with me for 20 minutes on the day of great importance to the Nation being Monday 27th.

I enclose for your perusal the most relevant of the documents exchanged between ASIC, its Unit Directors, Ministers and myself.
Core correspondence is letter to Mr W. Swan of 12 February 2012.

I particularly draw your attention to the itallised paragraph referred to in letter of
22 August 2011 by Mr G. Medcraft, attach 1.

I am convinced, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that ASIC failed our group
first and foremost by:

1. Refusing to recognise the most important breach of Corporation Act;
Section 601FD; FC (c) clearly stating that where a conflict arises between an RE and Unit-holders, the interests of unit-holders must prevail.
2. Allowing WC to implement by stealth liquidation of remaining PIF assets.
3. Allowing WC to proceed without putting it to PIF members
4. ASIC breaching own Regulations and Guidelines
5. ASIC failing to process my Application for Administrative (Protective) Hearing languishing now (since 22 August 2011) with Deterrence Unit headed
by Mr xxxxxxxx (ref 35946/11; PCS 2011/21121)

I look up to you Mr Shorten as a man of integrity and inspirational leadership in your past, present and continuing support of defining justice for working men and women of Australia.
Please help us at the earliest possible time. I am willing to meet with you at earliest available time, bar March 19-21 when I travel to Brisbane on other PIF matters.

Sincerely yours, Simon Grundel ]]]]]]

The 2 Assistants mentioned also assured me that Mr Shorten will respond personally to the correspondence when received.
It went yesterday by registered mail.

Additionally, I reproduce the itallised passage from Mr G. Medcraft's 7 page letter via Luke Hartsuyker's office which convinced me to look beyond ASIC for relief.

[...ASIC responded to each of the complainants around 20 May 20 2011 stating that:
"Section 601GC(1)(b)of the Act provides that a responsible entity may alter the scheme if it reasonably considers the change will not adversely affect members' rights. At law, the question is not a general a general wuestion whether members would be "worse off" if the change is made (for example it is not a general of prejudice or financial disadvantage). It is a specific question that goes to the narrow matter of the effects of the amendments on member's rights as set out in the constitution, for example, a member's right to withdraw from the Fund. Of course in making the amendment the responsible entity must act honestly and in the interests of members in accordance with section 601FC of the Act.

(here comes the stink bomb)

Wellington Capital confirmed to ASIC that it considers the amendments to be within its power and in the best interests of the members of the PIF.
In these circumstances ASIC is not proposing to take further action in relation to the specific issues raised in relation to the Placement and Non-Renouncable Rights Issues...]

This construct is not capable of being misinterpreted.
To my humble mind it's sure like asking the fox if the chicken coup has been locked for the night.
Dgenny the fox said YES and that's good enough for ASIC.
And this attitude cascaded down the ASIC ranks ensuring PIF's minor standing in ASIC's priorities.
I shook these ASIC underlings as hard as I could these past 18 months showing them the dangers to PIF.
This is as far as I could go on this 10 day Southern Leg of the Shaking Them Tour (STT).

The attached link only reinforces this glaring ASIC unprofessionalism.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic-nails-sigalla-but-pays-a-price-20120229-1u3c3.html

Have more developments to add to our library.

Be well,