Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity need to be investigated by the Federal Police, especially the current ‘Tudge Fudge Fraud’ which is reportedly devastating people’s lives at the alleged rate of up to 20,000 per day.
Note: the Short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-IL
Below is a draft copy of an email that I will be sending to the Federal Police. If you have been hit with a Centrelink demand for repayment of an ALLEGED over-payment, you need to read it (about 30 minutes) and then copy everything below the line, paste it into a word processor, print the text out and then hand deliver or post it to Centrelink.
Dear Commissioner Colvin,
Centrelink fail – Honest Government Advert (99 seconds)
Centrelink fail – Honest Government Advert (99 seconds)
Recommendation: Watch the above video, read the feedback, and then check out the NOTMYDEBT website before you read another word of this communication.
The on-going role of the Australian Federal Police [AFP] in protecting politicians who may have rorted the Parliamentary Entitlements Fund, or who may be engaging in the systemic defrauding and murder of welfare recipients, is now being exposed to public scrutiny in open forums, e.g. the Internet, free-to-air television, appeals tribunals, and possibly even the International Criminal Court at The Hague in the Netherlands.
Aldous Huxley’s truism that “Facts do not cease to exist because they are disregarded” is extremely relevant to the current humanitarian disaster that is occurring in Australia. Over a period measured in decades, the Australian Parliament has recklessly violated the civil rights of millions of people and as a direct consequence, an unknown number people, possibly 100,000 or more in number, are dead.
Whatever the as yet undisclosed number of officially “irrelevant” fatalities may be, the appalling harm caused by these civil rights violations means that the greatest terrorist threat to Australians comes not from supporters of fundamentalist terrorist organizations, but from the Federal Parliament and numerous agencies acting on behalf of the Federal Parliament.
My colloquial name for the current ruthlessly overt defrauding of welfare recipients, at the reported rate of up to 20,000 people per day is “The Tudge Fudge Fraud”. This is a blatant violation of the civil rights of welfare recipients that uses what I refer to as the “Lie on Rye” deception technique, i.e. the intimidation and misleading of unsuspecting victims who do have no detailed knowledge of their constitutional, legal and human rights. One of the very serious questions of law relating to this alleged criminal abuse of public office by federal politicians and public servants is whether-or-not a statement made by Christian Porter, the Federal Minister for Social Services, constitutes an unintended admission that since June 2016, Centrelink has defrauded 170,000 of $3 Billion?
The Lie on Rye Scam.
In recent weeks, the “Lie on Rye” scam being promoted in the mass media by Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and Hank Jongen, the manager of the Department of Human Services media relations unit, appears to have been very effective, possibly because this method of deception ‘sandwiches’ the lies intended to deceive between ‘wholesome’, irrefutable ‘slices’ or layers of truth.
- It is true that statute laws require that SOME Centrelink overpayments be recovered, IF they are not 6-week-old Commonwealth errors.
- It is also true that statute laws allow discrepancies in Centrelink data to be clarified by requesting further information from welfare recipients.
- However, IF this discrepancy is the result of Commonwealth data processing errors, the information should only be requested for the purpose of correcting those errors,
- Data mismatch should not be used as an excuse to place very vulnerable people, most of whom may not know their civil rights, under extreme duress in order to coerce them into repaying money that, by law, does not have to be repaid.
- To conceal the true causes of data mismatch errors and demand the repayment of overpayments that lawfully cannot be reclaimed is a criminal abuse of power, i.e. a violation of s. 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code with any fatalities caused by this criminal abuse of power being murder for financial gain. It should be noted from case law decisions such as Boughey and Kenny Charlie, an intent to kill is not necessary for a person to be charged with murder:
KENNY CHARLIE v R No. CA19 of 1995, Criminal Law and Procedure (1998) 119 NTR 1 (1998) 7 NTLR 152
The Mental Element of Murder: His Honour instructed the jury that the mental element of murder required proof of an intent to either cause the death of Annette Miller or to cause grievous harm to her. It is contended by the appellant that that was in error because upon the proper construction of s31 of the Criminal Code, the mental element of murder to be proved by the Crown comprises not just an intent to kill, or an intent to cause grievous harm, but that death was foreseen as a possible consequence of the accused’s conduct together with the other matters referred to in that section: where intent to kill is proved, then the requisite foresight is obvious, but where the intent proved is to do grievous harm, it is argued that the jury must be instructed that foresight of death by the accused must also be established within the meaning of s31, before murder can be found.
- UNWILLED ACT, &c., AND ACCIDENT
(1) A person is excused from criminal responsibility for an act, omission or event unless it was intended or foreseen by him as a possible consequence of his conduct.
(2) A person who does not intend a particular act, omission or event, but foresees it as a possible consequence of his conduct, and that particular act, omission or event occurs, is excused from criminal responsibility for it if, in all the circumstances, including the chance of it occurring and its nature, an ordinary person similarly circumstanced and having such foresight would have proceeded with that conduct..
- KILLING Any person who causes the death of another directly or indirectly by any means is deemed to have killed that other person.
- UNLAWFUL HOMICIDE
Any person who unlawfully kills another is guilty of a crime that is called murder or manslaughter according to the circumstances of the case.
(1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say:
(a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person grievous harm;
(b) if death is caused by means of an act done when committing or attempting to commit an offence referred to in subsection (2) which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;
“Grievous harm” is defined as meaning any physical or mental injury of such a nature as to endanger or be likely to endanger life or to cause or be likely to cause permanent injury to health (s1).
- The above case law precedent is one of many that can be considered by the Federal Police when examining the conduct of feral politicians, and public servants, including Australian Government Service lawyers and federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal Members, in regard to the actions being used to recover alleged overpayments from welfare recipients, or to deprive welfare recipients of social security benefits that they are entitled to under the Australian constitution and under the Commonwealth’s international treaty obligations.
- Any physical acts of omission, as per sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), e.g. the deliberate withholding of information that should be provided when Centrelink demands reimbursement of ALLEGED overpayments may constitute a criminal act of reckless endangerment. Whilst the withholding of information may be perceived as being an “astute” administrative tactic, i.e. sound economic management, for the purpose of recovering alleged overpayments to welfare recipients, it is an abuse of public office that is totally inconsistent with the Commonwealth’s procedural fairness obligations and Model Litigant obligations.
- Consistent with Kioa at paragraph 6 of Justice Deane’s Findings, respondents to Centrelink claims of overpayment need to able to make an informed judgement as to the merits of such claims and this cannot be done if information that may be credible, relevant or of significance is deliberately withheld from respondents to Centrelink’s claims.
- It is my contention that Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and Hank.
Jongen, along with many politicians, public servants and Officers of the Court, have deliberately mislead the Australian public by concealing many primary facts of the matter in relation to ALLEGED overpayments by Centrelink.
Crucial facts withheld from welfare recipients include The waiver of debt due to Commonwealth error and the ‘good faith’ error provisions in paragraph 1,237A of the Social Security Act and the “Exceptional Circumstances” exemptions contained in paragraph 1,237AAD (b) of the same Act.
- Other facts withheld include the massive systemic errors within Centrelink that have been independently identified by the Australian National Audit Office in Report No. 37 to the 44th Parliament, and in responses to questions made by senators during Community Affairs Legislation Committee and Community Affairs Reference Committee hearings.
- The Centrelink computer system is so inadequate that to prevent the badly overloaded early 1980s era ‘Integrated Social Infrastructure System’, backbone computer system from crashing, call blocking has been in place for several years.
- GIGO: Problems caused by undocumented operating system code modifications have caused unexpected errors in the ISIS output.
- The separation of the powers of the Parliament and the Courts in Chapter 3 of the Australian Constitution in paragraph 75 (iii) and 75 (iv) make it quite clear that the determination of the facts of the matter needed to ensure a fair and just termination of legal liability can only be made by a court.
- Centrelink decision-makers have no constitutional jurisdiction to determine liability for overpayment and any decision not made using facts adduced by a court is legally invalid.
- Any-and-all Ministerial statements that welfare recipients have “21-days” to prove that a Centrelink error caused the alleged overpayments are therefore almost certainly misleading abuses of lawful authority.
- Paragraphs 141, 142, and 143 of the High Court’s Hellicar decision [HCA 17 on May 3rd 2012], which enforced the constitutional separation of powers by making it quite clear that public servants have no constitutional right, i.e. no constitutional jurisdiction, to determine the facts of the matter in legal disputes.
- All claims by Centrelink that welfare recipients have been overpaid involves matters that require court determinations as to which facts are credible, relevant and significant which must be used to make determinations concerning the alleged legal liability of welfare recipients who have received overpayments.
- Since Centrelink is claiming that alleged overpayments be repaid, the legal onus is upon Centrelink, the Claimant, to prove that reliable evidence exists that the Respondent is responsible for errors that have resulted in overpayments. The 21-day time frame ‘allowed’ by Centrelink for welfare recipients to prove to Centrelink, instead of a court, that they are not liable for any alleged overpayments, or are still eligible for a disability pension or other welfare payment, is a criminal abuse of power that violates section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.
- At all times in these tortious conduct actions, the [constitutional] onus is upon Centrelink to prove that no Commonwealth error or good faith error has occurred. Until a court determines the facts upon which a fair and just decision can be made, Centrelink can take no action that may be detrimental in any way to any respondents to its tortious claims.
- In the pursuit of such claims, Centrelink must comply with the Commonwealth’s obligations under the 2005 Model Litigant Rules.
- According to information provided by DHS Secretary, Kathryn Campbell to a CALC hearing on 26th February 2015, the cost of seeking to recover alleged overpayments through the courts averages $25,000 per case and where claims are resisted by respondents who have some knowledge of their civil rights, costs can exceed $500,000.
- In most instances, legal action in the courts to recover alleged overpayments would therefore not be cost-effective.
- All policies and practices based upon recovering alleged overpayments by deliberately by-passing the courts, which are quite likely to reject a high percentage of Centrelink claims due to unreliable evidence, violate Due Process of Law and are a criminal abuse of power.
- The deliberate avoidance of Due Process of Law for the purpose of recovering a reported $4.7 Billion in alleged overpayments to more than 1 million welfare recipients may mean that the current efforts to recover these alleged overpayments may constitute one of the largest frauds in Australia’s history.
- As indicated in the Kenny Charlie case law extracts, any fatalities triggered by this alleged fraud could collectively constitute the worst case of serial murder for financial gain in Australia’s history.
- There is a substantial body of evidence that Centrelink’s almost 35-year-old ‘Integrated Social Infrastructure System’,k.a. ISIS, is a dysfunctional computer system that is extremely prone to errors due to the compromised operating system code, some of which dates back to the 1950s. The ISIS operating system contains undocumented modifications in its 30 million lines of code that can result in erroneous outputs.
- It is a matter of fact that the undocumented code means that it can take a team of Department of Human Service information technology programmers as long as 3-months just to undertake an extremely simple task such as change the date format on a form letter.
- There is a very high degree of probability that the majority of alleged overpayment claims are the result of Commonwealth errors and consequently, a very high proportion of Centrelink’s tort claims have no substance and merit in law.
- An impartial and independent investigation into the suitability of the ISIS system to do the tasks that it was required to perform is urgently needed as this manifestly dysfunctional system may be underlying cause of ‘Commonwealth errors’ that may have resulted in a major proportion of the alleged overpayment of the $,7 Billion that the Federal government is now seeking to recover.
- A Federal Police investigation, to determine whether or not Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and Hank Jongen are using their official status to provide credibility to misleading statements made to the mass media for the purpose of creating a false belief that would result in a financial advantage to the Commonwealth that is not entitled to be received.
- Have these public officials been conning the Australian public into erroneously believing that Centrelink’s actions when recovering alleged overpayments are legally valid, when, in law, Centrelink has no legally valid claim to a significant portion of this money.
- Since any legitimate action to recover the claimable portion is not cost effective and likely to fail in a court of law, it is not unreasonable to raise the possibility that Due Process of Law is being ignored in order to ensure the unlawful but cost effective, recovery of overpayments allegedly made to over 1 million people.
It is my contention that criminal abuses of power are occurring and a criminal investigation is urgently needed to halt this activity and to identify all of the victims of what I believe may constitute serious criminal misconduct by the Turnbull Government. If my concerns are valid, people who were so stupefied and overwhelmed emotionally that a fatal consequence eventuated, e.g. a heart attack, stroke, or a suicide are murder victims.
The chain of evidence in any criminal investigate should include current affairs segments and statements published in the print media. For example, in South Australia at approximately 7:45 PM Central Standard Daylight Saving Time, on 3rd January 2017, the ABC (Channel 2), broadcast a 7:30 Report segment that may be credible evidence to consider in any criminal investigation of the tactics used to recover alleged overpayments. The 7.30 Report segment focussed upon the on-going actions using the ISIS computer system to recover ALLEGED overpayments to welfare recipients.
I would point out the following matters of fact that have serious legal implications for the nation as-a-whole, and for the AFP in particular, due to the failure to prevent what may well be Abuse of power for financial gain murders.
In 7.6.8 of the Report of the royal commission into the Home Insulation Program, Commission Ian Hanger quoted a statement made by the Commonwealth Coordinator-General, Mike Mrdak : “My office and my team were therefore initially more engaged with DEWHA than with other agencies. DEWHA also took some greater time than other Commonwealth agencies to identify what the delivery and program assurance issues were.”
The statement “…took some greater time than other Commonwealth agencies to identify what the delivery and program assurance issues were” may be equally relevant to the way in which the Australian Federal Police are failing to deal with the Tudge-Fudge Fraud.
The Australian Federal Parliament has been violating the civil rights of vulnerable welfare recipients for decades, the civil rights of millions of people have been violated and at this stage it is possible that these violations may be the underlying cause of some 100,000 fatalities. To say that the AFP has been taking a very long time to identify the violations of criminal laws inherent in federal welfare policies is therefore something of an understatement, especially given that the stated policy of the AFP is that any complaints that I may make about this alleged criminal activity will not be acted upon. (See Federal Agent Pearce’s email which is appended at the end of this email.)
When Christian Porter stated that ‘since June (2016) 170,000 people had repaid $300 Million’, he was probably making a statement of political and administrative achievement. However, when that statement is viewed in the far broader context of the Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions, he may have been unintentionally confessing to the violating of the civil rights of 170,000 people which had resulted in the proceeds of a financial benefit of $300 Million that was not entitled to be received, i.e. he publicly confessed to defrauding 170,000 people of $300 Million.
Whilst your subjective reaction may be to immediate reject the above statement, you have both a constitutional obligation and a statutory duty of office to forensically evaluate the empirical facts of the matter and the questions of criminal law raised by those facts, e.g. how many people have died as a result of these civil rights violations?
MATTERS OF FACT – Set #1
- The allegations of overpayment are being made by the ISIS computer system, which sends out electronic ‘notifications’ in the form of SMS or email notifications, or in the form of letters-of-demand that make contain blatant false and misleading statements, e.g. the redacted letter on page 98 of volume 2 of The Emcott Report.
- Many of the recipients of these notifications are impoverished people who may have as little as $5 per day to feed themselves or other family members.
- Porter’s statement that the letters are mild in content displays a total lack of awareness that these notifications can extremely dangerous, i.e. so emotionally traumatic in impact that they can trigger a fatal heart attack, stroke, or a suicide attempt that may be successful.
- When it comes to the mindset of murder, in law, a person does not have to intend to commit murder to be charged with murder. If they are recklessly indifferent to the harmful, potentially fatal consequences of their actions and a fatality occurs, those responsible for that fatality can face murder charges.
- As a former Senior Public Prosecutor, it is a gross understatement to say Christian Porter “ought to have known” the potentially lethal consequences of these notifications, especially since his electorate office provides a link to a DSS fact sheet that clearly identifies people on welfare as being “Australia’s most vulnerable people.”
- The determination of the primary facts of the matter in regard to each of these tortious conduct actions is not being determined by a court, but by the Department of Human Services ISIS computer system .
- This computer system has a track record of dysfunction operation, e.g. on 1st January 2016, some 73,000 people received electronic notification of ALLEGED debts of up to $800.
- After Channel 7 investigated a complaint by Stacy Mitchell, a resident of Cowra in New South Wales, the Department of Human Services [DHS] rescinded all 73,000 notifications with the general-manager of the DHS media relations unit, Hank Jongen, [aka “Centrelink ‘General manager’, Hank Jongen”, who is not THE General Manager of Centrelink], claiming that these notifications were a computer error.
- In February 2016, the ABC’s AM program ran a segment featuring Ms. Meredith Ward and the then Minister for Human Services, Stuart Robert. Ms. Ward been the victim of a “Failure to Code to Zero Error”, i.e. a typing mistake, that had resulted in a wrongful claim for the repayment of $25,000. According to Ms. Ward, she had received, without prior written notification, a phone call from a Centrelink official notifying her of an alleged $25,000 debt.
- A normal reasonable person, Ms. Ward statement that she had been severely shocked by this notification is a reasonable response to such a notification.
- As you are no doubt fully aware, it is a matter of fact that, in law, a computer system is not a legal entity and therefore has no legal jurisdiction to either make allegations of overpayment, or to determine legal liability for the alleged debt until the output from the computer system has been independently verified by court appointed experts.
- The dysfunctional problems of the ISIS computer system were pointed out to you in my previous email on 3rd January 2017, along with specific reference to two High Court decisions, i.e. ASIC v Hellicar at paragraphs 141 – 143, and Minister of Immigration v Bhardwaj at paragraph 53.
- The Hellicar decision made it quite clear that in tortious conduct actions, the determination of the primary facts of the matter, i.e. the facts that are legally credible, relevant, and significant in regard to the tort action, which must be adduced by a court.
- I cannot say this too often, until a court determines the relevant facts, DHS bureaucrats have no jurisdiction to make any legal decision that may impose a pecuniary penalty or other hardship upon a person.
- If DHS decision-makers have no jurisdiction to make any determination as to the primary facts upon which a legal decision, i.e. legal liability for alleged Centrelink overpayments, then how much less jurisdiction does the dysfunctional non-legal-entity, the ISIS computer system have?
- The answer to the above question is to be found in the Bhardwaj decision at paragraph 53, i.e. “…if the duty of the decision-maker is to make a decision with respect to a person’s rights but, because of jurisdictional error, he or she proceeds to make what is, in law, no decision at all, then, in law, the duty to make a decision remains unperformed.”
- No Department of Human Services officials, including Administrative Review Officers, [ARO’s] have the constitutional right to determine the facts of the matter upon which a determination as to legal liability can lawfully be made.
- As the Bhardwaj decision made quite clear, in law, any such decisions are, “in law, no decision at all.”
- Since they are “no decision at all”, it logically follows that any downstream decisions made by Social Security Appeals Tribunals or Administrative Appeals Tribunals are also, “in law, no decision at all.”
- The 7.30 Report segment contained a purportedly “secret” document instructing Centrelink customer service assistants not to assist welfare recipients in responding to Centrelink’s alleged overpayment claims.
- If that document is genuine, then the instructions are a clear violation of Section 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995).
- As you are probably fully aware, this statute makes unlawful any action that obstructs Commonwealth public officials in the performance of their statutory functions.
- The primary function of Department of Human Services customer service assistants is to assist the public. In all matters dealing with the civil rights of members of the public, any instruction that unfairly and/or unlawfully aids the Commonwealth in the recovery of alleged overpayments that the Commonwealth may have no lawful right to reclaim is a criminal act under 149.1 Obstruction of Commonwealth public officials which states:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person knows that another person is a public official; and
(b) the first‑mentioned person obstructs, hinders, intimidates or resists the official in the performance of the official’s functions; and
(c) the official is a Commonwealth public official; and
(d) the functions are functions as a Commonwealth public official.
- Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
It is highly probable that Ministerial issued departmental directives that prohibit Centrelink customer service assistants from assisting welfare recipients with what may well be fraudulent ‘account payable’ demands that by-pass Due Process of Law, are violations of the above statute.
Although it should not be necessary to do so, I would again remind you of paragraph 5 of the constitution, which very clearly states that “the laws of the commonwealth shall be binding on the courts, judges and the people.” The word “binding” very clearly implies that compliance with these laws is not optional and that those who wilfully disregard these laws with exigent circumstances to justify this non-compliance must be held accountable before the a court of law.
- You need to perform your sworn duty and investigate the allegations raised in this communication. In doing so, you may receive numerous reports from members of public who were threatened with legal action if they did not agree to repay the alleged debt, e.g. agree to repay the (alleged) debt or we will sell your house. Any-and-all such threats are violations of s. 138 and s. 139 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code:
- Unwarranted demand with menaces
(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person (the first person) makes an unwarranted demand with menaces of another person if, and only if:
(a) the first person makes a demand with menaces of the other person; and
(b) the first person does not believe that he or she has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(c) the first person does not reasonably believe that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
(2) This Part applies to a demand whether or not it is for property.
(3) This Part applies to a demand with menaces, whether or not the menaces relate to conduct to be engaged in by the person making the demand.
(1) For the purposes of this Part, menaces includes:
(a) a threat (whether express or implied) of conduct that is detrimental or unpleasant to another person; or
(b) a general threat of detrimental or unpleasant conduct that is implied because of the status, office or position of the maker of the threat.
Threat against an individual
(2) For the purposes of this Part, a threat against an individual is taken not to be menaces unless:
(i) the threat would be likely to cause the individual to act unwillingly; and
(ii) the maker of the threat is aware of the vulnerability of the individual to the threat; or
(b) the threat would be likely to cause a person of normal stability and courage to act unwillingly.
Threat against a person who is not an individual
(3) For the purposes of this Part, a threat against a person who is not an individual is taken not to be menaces unless:
(a) the threat would ordinarily cause an unwilling response; or
(b) the threat would be likely to cause an unwilling response because of a particular vulnerability of which the maker of the threat is aware.
139.1 Unwarranted demands of a Commonwealth public official
A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person makes an unwarranted demand with menaces of another person; and
(b) the demand or the menaces are directly or indirectly related to:
(i) the other person’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or
(ii) any influence the other person has in the other person’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and
(c) the first‑mentioned person does so with the intention of:
(i) obtaining a gain; or
(ii) causing a loss; or
(iii) influencing the official in the exercise of the official’s duties as a Commonwealth public official.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 years.
139.2 Unwarranted demands made by a Commonwealth public official
A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the official makes an unwarranted demand with menaces of another person; and
(b) the demand or the menaces are directly or indirectly related to:
(i) the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or
(ii) any influence the official has in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and
(c) the official does so with the intention of:
(i) obtaining a gain; or
(ii) causing a loss; or
(iii) influencing another Commonwealth public official in the exercise of the other official’s duties as a Commonwealth public official.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 years
A question for serious consideration is the issue as to why senior Public Servants have ignored Commissioner Hanger’s advice at 14.6.7 in the HIP Report and failed to advise the Minister of Human Services that this directive was an unlawful directive that was a serious violation of criminal laws?
“The APS ought to brief Ministers on the risks inherent in a recommended approach or advise on how the proposed approach might contain faults in the design or otherwise fail to work. Such a concerted focus on assessing the negatives associated with a proposal is a core component of the modes of thinking promoted by Edward De Bono—he refers to this manner of thinking as ‘black hat’ thinking, and asserts that it should never be seen as an attempt to be obstructionist or argumentative, but instead should be seen as an opportunity to consider negative elements alongside the positives, and to make a decision informed by the balance of each.
As a practical measure, there should be a requirement to provide advice of this nature to Ministers at the same time as presenting a brief or proposal for a Minister’s consideration”
If the directive shown on the 7:30 report was genuine, then it would appear that DHS officials had failed to take on board both the above advice and the following advice contained In 14.6.8: “Advice must be multifaceted. It must look at issues beyond the Department’s primary objective. For example, in the case of the HIP, advice on the economic impacts should have focused not only on the macro-economic stimulus impacts, but also on the likely impact on the industry itself in both the short and long term.”
Commissioner Hanger’s comments in 14.6.9 leave DHS, and DSS officials with no reasonable excuse for failing to fully inform either Alan Tudge of Christian Porter of the inappropriateness of the alleged directive: Responsive advice is frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely. The advice should be evidence-based, well argued and creative, anticipate issues and appreciate the underlying intent of government policy. Responsive advice is also forthright and direct and does not withhold or gloss over important known facts or ‘bad news’.
In 14.6.11, Commissioner Hanger made a scathing judgement statement that may be applicable to all areas of the Department of Human Services management of the crucial task of protecting Australia’s most vulnerable form abusive, ideology driven exploitation by politicians who may be more concerned with “actuarial issues” than with the task of providing welfare support to at-risk people: 14.6.11 It is a shame that those entrusted with the implementation of the HIP did not adhere to these principles.
As has been pointed out in volume 2 of The Emcott Report, in 22.214.171.124 Commissioner Hanger made it quite clear that public servants need to advise Ministers on risk factors: Regular and ongoing engagement with identified risks—I consider that the APS has already gone some way to achieving this. It is recognised that officials ought to treat seriously the whole question of risks and their management—it is not enough to name and dismiss those problems.
In 126.96.36.199.1 Commissioner made it very clear that governments cannot abrogate responsibility for risks:
Risk cannot be abrogated—Government must recognise that as much as it might seek to do so, risk cannot be abrogated. The responsibility of Government is to care for its citizens and to exercise care and diligence to do everything reasonable to ensure citizens are not placed in danger by its actions, particularly risk of death and serious injury.
- What sought of risk management is in place when, for decades, successive governments refuse to replace a manifestly inadequate, dysfunctional computer system that is known to be error prone.
- What sought of risk management is in place when, for decades, impoverished welfare recipients are accused of being responsible for overpayment errors caused by this computer system and are left struggling to survive on a manifestly inadequate subsistence allowance?.
- What sought of risk management is in place when the management team does not monitor the human impact of its activities and has no specific knowledge of the numbers of people who are:
- Unable to pay for essential services;
- Unable to buy life-preserving medication;
- Unable to pay accommodation costs and are evicted;
- So traumatized by the harsh, inhumane treatment that they die from strokes, heart attacks or other natural causes?
- What exactly is Risk Management when you have Hank Jongen telling welfare recipients to call Lifeline?
- What risks are inherent in telling aged pensioners who cannot afford $500 per hour for legal advice, that if the do not agree to prepay Centrelink’s ALLEGED overpayments, that their house will be sold>
In addition to these unwarranted threats being a violation of the above mentioned statutes, as is pointed on page 106 of volume 2 of The Emcott Report, the letter threatening to deprive me of my pension was also a violation of Sections 171 and 172 of South Australia’s criminal code.
The threat to deprive me of my age pension was unwarranted as my wife and I were 100% compliant with our reporting obligations. The problem for Centrelink was that due to the limitations of the ISIS computer system, cross-checking to confirm that fact would have required the time-consuming creation of a manual database report. From a systemic perspective, it was far more cost effective to simply threaten to deprive my wife and I of our means of subsistence. Whilst this abuse of power is effective, it is a threat to endanger life simply for administrative convenience; that is a major crime with a 12-year head sentence PER OFFENCE and yet this standard procedure.
MATTERS OF FACT – SET #2
- In my previous email, you were provided with a digitized copy of volume 2 of The Emcott Report, a dual-purpose document that is both part of a complaint lodged with United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights and a number of Australian agencies that have the lawful authority to undertake criminal investigations of alleged human rights violations, e.g. the AFP, the ACT Human Rights Commission, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Privacy commissioner and the Australian Law Society.
- This document is also an educational document for the national and international community and may also be used as a “facts not yet in evidence” document for any person who may the victim of fraudulent or erroneous Centrelink overpayment claims.
- In addition, it may also be used as “facts not yet in evidence” by persons accused of fraud, misrepresentation, obtaining a benefit by deception, blackmail, intimidation, unlawful coercion, reckless endangerment, manslaughter. or murder for the specific purpose of demonstrating that the charges, prosecution or conviction for allegedly committing one, or more, of these crimes, in law, constitutes manifest ostensible Bias.
- The failure of the AFP, ACC, ACMA, OCO and a number other agencies who “ought to have known” that crimes were being committed but declined to investigate these crimes over a time frame measured in decades, constitutes massive ostensible bias on a Broad Ultra Vires
- One example of this criminal abuse of power is found on page 102 of volume 2 of The Emcott Report, i.e. the letter from Ms. Alice Linacre, the Acting Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS.
- Please note the following statement contained in that letter; “I refer to your letters dated 9 December and 17 December 2015 (addressed to the former Chief Legal counsel for the Department of Human Services) regarding <Redacted> and the Secretary of the Department of human Services  AATA <???> and the bound material enclosed with those letters. Your letter requests that the information provided be considered and I confirm that it has been considered. I do not consider that any action by the Department of Human Services is necessary.”
- This letter from Acting Chief Legal Counsel Linacre is empirical evidence that the Department of Human Services, as a legal entity, was aware of the Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions, and in direct violation of the civil rights of the applicant, chose to ignore those High court decisions and by not to honouring them, defraud the applicant.
- As stated previous, Commissioner Hanger recommended that senior public servants who advise Ministers should be fearless in giving impartial information, based upon facts rather than ideology or opinions.
- The contents of the information provided to Ms. Linacre included Volume 1 of The Emcott Report, made specific references to the Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions and pointed out that, in the absence of a court adducing the facts of the matter, the original decision was, in law, “no decision at all.
- In paragraph 44 of the AAT appeal that I was involved in, I was unaware of Hellicar when this finding, in paragraph 44 of the appeal findings was made: The Tribunal’s power to stand in the shoes of the decision-maker, in this case the Secretary, is exercisable only in relation to the decision under review, in this case the SSAT Decision. The Tribunal has no general review or decision-making power and it cannot substitute for the decision-maker generally. As Brennan J said in Re Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd and Collector of Customs (NSW) (1978) 1 ALD 167 at 175: “The AAT is not the primary administrator. It is not the original repository of powers and discretions under an enactment”. The Tribunal’s inability to exercise powers other than those available to the decision-maker can lead to injustice in some cases.
- The ‘decision-maker’ in this case was “the Secretary”, who, according to the High court in Hellicar at 141 – 143, had no jurisdiction to determine the facts of the matter and yet did so in clear violation of the applicant’s constitutional rights, which as the presiding AAT Member “ought to have known” was a major procedural fairness violation that invalidated the Secretary’s decision that, in law, was no decision at all.
- It is eminently logical that if the original decision was, in law, no decision at all, then the SSAT decision was also ‘no decision at all’ and yet this was upheld be referring to a case law decision that pre-dated the Hellicar decision by 35-years and the Bhardwaj decision by 24-years.
- Paragraph 46 of the AAT finding stated: A person, like Ms Locke, who is dissatisfied with a departmental decision may have other courses of action open to him or her, including lodging a complaint with the Commonwealth Ombudsman or applying to the Federal Court of Australia under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJRA) for a review of the decision concerned on grounds which include breach of natural justice, improper exercise of power and no evidence to justify the making of the decision: see s 5(1) of the ADJRA.
- There are a number of procedural fairness problems that highlight the use of the absolute inadequacy of the AAT appeal system, other than as a convenient means of providing a veneer of legitimacy when defrauding welfare recipients.
- Firstly, this decision was made in knowledge that evidence had been withheld, i.e. the phone call, recording at the centre of the dispute had not been made available by Centrelink.
- Secondly, an appeal was lodged with the Commonwealth Ombudsman hat contained the Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions, as well as a protest at the failure to provide the phone call recording, was set aside and the applicant informed that since no new evidence had been presented, the appeal was not upheld.
- Thirdly, the applicant only had Year 9 level education some 45 years earlier. In Bushell & Secretary of State for the Environment  AC75 (HL 97), Lord Diplock stated that “To over judicialise the enquiry by insisting on observance of the procedures of the court of Justice which professional lawyers alone are competent to operate effectively in the interests of their clients would not be fair.”
- Lord Diplock’s statement highlights the utter absurbity of suggesting to an impoverished person with low education standards that they should apply to the Federal Court for a review.
- Indeed, that suggestion that an impoverished person, with no means to do so, should appeal to the Federal Court, is absolutely outrageous given that the Secretary, as the Original Claimant, should have first sought a court determination of the facts of the matter before making any decision as to who was legally liable for any alleged overpayments.
- In July 2009, Francis Neale, the Co-chair: International Bar Association – Rule of Law Action Group stated: “All countries, even those governed by the crudest dictatorship, need or have laws, although they disregard the individual or collective rights of all or parts of the population. Indeed, apartheid was enforced with meticulous attention to form and detail.”
- The massive, deliberate over-judicialization of an appeal process that ignores the constitution, criminal laws, High Court precedents and criminal law statutes has nothing to do with justice; it is, as stated previously, a legalistic veneer that is intended to legitimize criminal abuses of power for the apparent purpose of purpose reclaiming monies that the Commonwealth has no lawful right to reclaim.
- THE ENTIRE AAT SYSTEM NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED BY THE AFP TO DETERMINE JUST HOW EXTENSIVE THIS ACTIVITY IS.
If 14.6.7 had been complied with, both Alan Tudge and Christian Porter should be have been fully aware of the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions, as would the members of the Community Affairs Reference Committee. If DHS and DSS officials have not officially made these decisions known to the Ministers, then accountability for the fraudulent violations of civil rights may, in law, rest solely with these officials. With the possibility of a substantial, unreported, secretly classified, “irrelevant” death toll that the AAT refused to acknowledge, accountability carries life-changing implications for those who failed to meet their professional responsibilities.
MATTERS OF FACT – SET #3 Abuse of Public Office
The following statute provisions contained in the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) are Matters of Fact that need to be considered in any legal review of both the OCO letter and Ms. Linacre’s letter:
142.2 Abuse of public office
(1) A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the official:
(i) exercises any influence that the official has in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or
(ii) engages in any conduct in the exercise of the official’s duties as a Commonwealth public official; or
(iii) uses any information that the official has obtained in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and
(b) the official does so with the intention of:
(i) dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or
(ii) dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.
- Linacre’s letter is also evidence that the DHS senior management team “ought to have known” about both the Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions.
- Since the documents provided to Ms. Linacre included Assistant secretary Neil Skill’s “Centrelink does not collect Post Breaching Terminal outcomes statistics, a fact verified in April 2016 by the “Letters to the dead” fiasco, Ms. Linacre’s letter is also evidence that she would have been fully aware that DHS officials were not collecting and reporting the statistical data on the fatal impact of breaching penalties and Centrelink’s account payable demands.
- Linacre would also have been aware that data on the inability of welfare recipients to pay for ESSENTIAL services and data on EVICTIONS was also not being collected.
- In her position as the Acting Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS, Ms. Linacre “ought to have known”, especially in the aftermath of the Hanger Royal Commission Report, that without this mission critical data, human services risk assessment was impossible.
- As Justice Brooking stated in R v Faure  VSCA 166 (24 September 1999), ‘the placing of life in peril constitutes the crime.’
- The systemic failure to collect this data after concerns about the scale of this death toll were raised by a member of the public, i.e. me, during the ECA Senate Committee hearing into the 4 HIP fatalities is almost certainly a criminal act of omission that the AFP, or an independent commission of inquiry, needs to investigate thoroughly.
- As the Acting-Chief-Legal-Counsel for the DHS, Ms. Linacre “ought to have known” that these (alleged) fatalities, whatever the actual cause of death, were murders under Article 7 (1) (a) of the Rome Statute and homicides under Australian state and territory laws.
- Linacre’s arbitrary rejection of the information may be more than just an abuse of public office for the purpose of defrauding the person that I was representing; it may have also been a deliberate attempt to conceal the death toll triggered by unconstitutional tortious conduct.
- Empirical confirmation of what was provided to Ms. Linacre can be best sourced from Ms. Linacre who should be required to make ALL of the information provided, i.e. my letters, bound documents and DVD disks, for forensic examination.
- An appropriate forensic examination to verify that the original documents have been provided to investigators would be to test for my DNA on the documents and DVD.
MATTERS OF FACT -SET #4 – Model Litigant Rules.
- The “Model Litigant Policy”, as it is commonly described, is a Legal Service Direction issued by the Attorney-General pursuant to s 55ZF of theJudiciary Act 1903. It was first issued in 1999, i.e. about 87 years after a 1912 court hearing first raised the need for the Commonwealth to avoid abusing its power in litigation in a manner that would provide an unfair advantage. In civil litigation the Commonwealth has a duty to act as a Model Litigant. The development of this ‘Model Litigant’ obligation in conducting litigation can be traced to Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead (1912) 15 CLR 333 where Chief Justice Griffith explained it as ‘[t]he old fashioned traditional, and almost instinctive, standard of fair play to be observed by the Crown in dealing with subjects.’ The current version is contained in Appendix B of the Legal Services Directions 2005.
- Directive 1 of the Commonwealth Direction states:
“Consistently with the Attorney-General’s responsibility for the maintenance of proper standards in litigation, the Commonwealth and its agencies are to behave as model litigants in the conduct of litigation.”
- Directive 2 goes on to give content to the obligation stating:
“The obligation to act as a model litigant requires that the Commonwealth and its agencies act honestly and fairly…”
- This obligation is not being met, a fact evidenced in several ways, the most obvious current example being that Alan Tudge, Christian Porter, DHS staff and the DHS’s ISIS computer have no constitutional jurisdiction, and therefore, in law, have no legal jurisdiction, to determine legal liability when attempting to recover alleged overpayments to welfare recipients. In addition to the case law precedents already mentioned, there are many other court precedents that are apparently being more honoured in the breach than the observance.
- In Kioa v West (HCA 81 – 18th December 1985) at paragraph 6 in his findings, Justice Deane ruled that information should not be withheld by administrative decision-makers, His Honour ruled that “To do so : In the absence of a clear contrary legislative intent, a person who is entrusted with statutory power to make an administrative decision which directly affects the rights, interests, status or legitimate expectations of another in his individual capacity (as distinct from as a member of the general public or of a class of the general public) is bound to observe the requirements of natural justice or procedural fairness”.
At paragraph 38 of his Findings in this case, Justice Brennan also ruled, Nevertheless in the ordinary case where no problem of confidentiality arises an opportunity should be given to deal with adverse information that is credible, relevant and significant to the decision to be made. It is not sufficient for the repository of the power to endeavour to shut information of that kind out of his mind and to reach a decision without reference to it. Information of that kind creates a real risk of prejudice, albeit subconscious, and it is unfair to deny a person whose interests are likely to be affected by the decision an opportunity to deal with the information.
- Decision-makers who withhold credible, relevant information that may be of significance commit a procedural fairness violation that, if deemed by a court to be a serious violation, invalidates the decision-maker’s determination. Such violations therefore also constitute a serious violation of Model Litigant Rules.
- Directive 5 (i) of the Model Litigant Rules clearly specifies not requiring the other party to prove a matter the Commonwealth or agency knows to be true. Not informing welfare recipients about their legal rights, e.g. the Waiver of debt law, or the long-term systemic problems with the ISIS computer system that are identified in DHS testimony to senate committees, the Auditor-General’s Report No. 31, and in volumes 1 & 2 of The Emcott Report, constitutes a serious violation of the Kioa procedural fairness principle and is also totally inconsistent with Directive 5 (i) of the Model Litigant Rules.
- Directive 5 (g) requires that Commonwealth agencies not take advantage of a claimant who lacks resources. Unemployed people are impoverished people who subsist 50% below the OECD poverty line and are currently receiving a subsistence allowance that is, according to ACOSS, $53 below the minimum amount required to meet the basic costs of living.
Whilst it is manifestly obvious welfare recipients appealing “Account payable’ demands in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, cannot afford legal representation, the DHS, the DSS and other government agencies that use the AAT appeals system have taxpayer funded access to teams of AGS] lawyers.
In clear violation of Article 5 of the constitution and s. 3 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, AGS lawyers routinely prepare complex ‘T’ Documents that are the domain of legal experts, i.e. lawyers, not impoverished or aged members of the public who may be intellectually stupefied and emotionally overwhelmed’ by the documents
“Informal”: The word “informal” is contained in 2A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, “In carrying out its functions, the Tribunal must pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick.”
“Informal” means a lack of formality, which in turn means that technically complex, legal documents which are formal documents required as part of part of Due Process by a court, by Act of Parliament, have no place in AAT hearings unless requested by the applicant or their representative. The problem is, the AAT appears to have been hi-jacked by the AGS and AAT members to the point where is has become a quasi-legal court system where the emphasis is on formal courtroom processes and procedures rather than the fuction of being an informal administrative review of administrative decisions.
Irrefutable evidence of the extent to which this has become a major problem is emphasized by the need for the President of the AAT, Justice Duncan Kerr to express his concern about this hi-jacking of the AAT in a speech to the New South Wales branch of the Australian Institute of Administrative Lawyers on 28th August 2013. In this speech, titled “Keeping the AAT from becoming a court”, Justice Kerr emphasized that the AAT has no constitutional jurisdiction to act as a court. The application of courtroom procedures in a tribunal that, by Act of Parliament, must be informal, is a major violation of procedural fairness principles and their constant use by AAT lawyers is a procedural fairness violation. Article 5 of the constitution clearly states that “the laws of the Commonwealth are binding on the courts, judges and the people”.
- Justice Brennan said in Re Bolton; Ex parte Beane(1987) 162 CLR 514 at 523, that the Courts will not construe a statute as abrogating or suspending a fundamental freedom unless the Parliament made its intention to do so “unmistakeably clear”
- In Coco v The Queen 1994) 179 CLR 427 at 436, Chief Justice Mason and Justices Brennan, Gaudron and McHugh emphasised that “Statutory authority to engage in what otherwise would be tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and unambiguous language.”
- They then stated at 438, “In Bropho v Western Australia, Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ. pointed out that the rationale against the presumption against the modification or abrogation of fundamental rights is to be found in the assumption that it is:”
- [quoting Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277 at 304 ] “‘in the last degree improbable that the legislature would overthrow fundamental principles, infringe rights, or depart from the general system of law, without expressing its intention with irresistible clearness; and to give any such effect to general words, simply because they have that meaning in their widest, or usual, or natural sense, would be to give them a meaning in which they were not really used’.”
Authority to engage in tortious conduct has been expressed in unmistakeable and unambiguous language with irresistible clearness that cannot be abrogated, either by AGS lawyers or by AAT Members. In order to comply with both statute law and procedural fairness, AAT hearing must be “informal” when seeking to reach a “fair” and “just” determination. When AAT Members and AGS lawyers conspire to hold a trail, e.g. the Directions Hearing for AAT case file 2014/<Redacted> on <Redacted> that are in violation of Section 12.3 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act:
12.3 Fault elements other than negligence
(1) If intention, knowledge or recklessness is a fault element in relation to a physical element of an offence, that fault element must be attributed to a body corporate that expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted the commission of the offence.
(2) The means by which such an authorisation or permission may be established include:
(a) proving that the body corporate’s board of directors intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carried out the relevant conduct, or expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted the commission of the offence; or
(b) proving that a high managerial agent of the body corporate intentionally, knowingly or recklessly engaged in the relevant conduct, or expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted the commission of the offence; or
- c) proving that a corporate culture existed within the body corporate that directed, encouraged, tolerated or led to non‑compliance with the relevant provision; or
(d) proving that the body corporate failed to create and maintain a corporate culture that required compliance with the relevant provision.
(3) Paragraph (2)(b) does not apply if the body corporate proves that it exercised due diligence to prevent the conduct, or the authorisation or permission.
It is possible that one of the underlying reasons for Justice Kerr’s speech to the AIAL in August 2013 was to diminish liability for the problem of AGS lawyers and AAT Members holding ‘Kangaroo court’ trials. In December 2015, Justice Kerr was provided with an audio-recording of the above-mentioned Directions Hearing but failed to act to ensure that the applicant received a re-hearing of the case as per Bhardwaj at 53. The failure of Justice Kerr to act to ensure a “fair” and “just” re-hearing of the case may be evidence of widespread acceptance of gross injustices being perpetrated against welfare recipients.
- The extreme lengths that some high-ranking bureaucrats will go to win legal appeals in almost beyond belief. On 26th February 2015, the Secretary for the Department of Human Services, Kathryn Campbell, conformed to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee [CALC] the accuracy of a Canberra times report that $565,000 had been spend in an endeavour to recover an amount of less than $6,000 from a welfare recipient. Ms. Campbell also admitted that 3 government lawyers and a hired barrister had represented the DHS. This was an example of ‘over-judicialization’ by Ms. Campbell, who justified this extravagant expenditure of taxpayer’ money on the basis that it was necessary as the DHS was attempting to obtain a case law precedent.
Whatever Ms. Campbell’s motives may have been, her actions in the conduct of this legal action were inconsistent with the Model Litigant Rules, which means that any legal precedent set may be of dubious legal merit. The precedent that Ms. Campbell was seeking may also be legally invalid because of the issue raised by Senator Xenophon, a barrister with some 30 years of experience, i.e. that evidence was being withheld in this tort action. Not only is the withholding of evidence inconsistent with procedural fairness and the statutory obligation of the AAT to provide a “fair” and “just” hearing, engaging in this activity to win tort cases is a crime.
The problem of withholding information was central to the AAT case that I was involved in. It is a also central issue in many of the instances where people contacted me seeking advice about the waiver of debt law.
For some welfare recipients, the first knowledge that they had of this statute was when they read about it in one of my Ronald’s space web postings. The withholding of information is also glaringly obvious in statements made in the mass media by Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and Hank Jongen. The statutory rights and procedural rights of welfare recipients is omitted from statements claiming that overpayments ’must’ be recovered.
The concealment of civil rights by senior public officials, e.g. Alan tudge, Christian porter and Hank Jongen, is a conspicuous omission in interviews conducted by representatives of the mass media. Emphasizing that alleged overpayments must be repaid whilst avoiding any mention of the Commonwealth’s obligations to waiver Commonwealth error debts is exceedingly misleading. In ACCC v AGL South Australia Pty Ltd  FCA 1369 at 149 the court stated,
“However, this does not mean that all matters communicated by a representor are to be taken to have the same weight or effect, or that later qualifying words will neutralise the effect of an earlier misrepresentation. Some words and representations may have a more dominant effect than others. That effect may be so dominant or persuasive as not to be neutralised by other statements made on the same occasion, or as part of the overall representation, which are less prominent. The ACCC invoked the concept of the dominant message, contending that the offered discount in conjunction with the fixed term gave rise to such a message.
Statements that welfare recipients have 21-days to prove that Centrelink was responsible for the (alleged) overpayments, i.e. a Commonwealth error, may be a serious abuse of public office given that constitutional onus is on the DHS (Centrelink) to first have a court adduce the facts of the matter upon which a fair and just determine of legal liability may be made.
References to the appeals mechanisms fail to mention the extremely ‘nit-picky, technical defence details that AGS lawyers and bureaucrats will go to, in defiance of the Model Litigant Rules, to recover alleged overpayments.
- Clause 5 (h), The Model Litigant principle of “not relying on technical defences” was a Dickensian Bleak House travesty of justice in the AAT case that I was involved in that did little other than bring the appeals system into disrepute.
In violation of the principles of a “just” and “fair” hearing, and in violation of s. 1142.2 and s.149.1 of the commonwealth Criminal Code, the DHS withheld critical evidence needed for a fair and just decision, i.e. a phone call recording, and downplayed the possibility that a DHS call centre operator may have given incorrect advice concerning what constituted changes in circumstances with the previously mentioned finding in paragraph 42 of the decision that (Commonwealth) errors were normal and therefore did not qualify as exceptional circumstances.
An impartial court holding a public hearing would have been unlikely to have accepted that disgraceful perversion of justice as a valid finding
- In addition to relying on 3 lawyers to overwhelm a 60-year-old school cleaner with Year 9 education levels, the core of the DSS case on behalf of the DHS was the highly questionable technical defence that the applicant should have read and understood the DHS letter stating that changes in circumstances must be reported. It was a very much a case of never mind the primary facts of the matter, any excuse to force repayment of the alleged overpayment would do. If that was not an abuse of public office, what was it?
- Like the Australian Taxation office and other federal Government agencies, Centrelink arbitrarily records phone calls made to its call centres. Since the applicant had queried her change in circumstances in a phone call query to Centrelink, the withholding of the phone call recording of that conversation, as is shown by the redacted email on page 99 of volume 2 of The Emcott Report, meant that the Commonwealth was both withholding evidence and at the same time, relying on a minor technical point to win the appeal.
- As you are aware, withholding evidence is a violation of both s. 142.2 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, a very significant error of law for it is a violation of two federal criminal law statutes.
- As I pointed out in my previous email, it is a matter of fact that the Commonwealth has a track record of engaging in such reprehensible tactics. In Queen v Martens  QCA 351 at paragraph 50, the Court was scathing in its criticism of the Commonwealth’s tactics: “The submission does little credit to the DPP – The records are of critical importance – The prosecutor did not provide the records and instead told Martens that they did not exist – They were found after Martens’ conviction as a result of efforts made by his wife – It is a poor reflection upon the DPP and the Australian Federal Police that one should have failed to find them, and denied their existence, and the other object to their use in the reference on the ground that Martens should have obtained them earlier – The fresh evidence proves that GN did not fly with Martens from the small village to Port Moresby on any occasion which satisfies her depiction of the circumstances in which she was assaulted – The evidence also corroborates Martens’ evidence at his trial.”
- In 2006, the Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] released the Adult Life Skills Report which revealed that 47% of people in Australia have serious functional literacy problems, especially documentary literacy, i.e. the ability to accurately comprehend or understand the content of documents.
- The following extract is sourced from the ABS Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey, Summary Results, Australia 2006 (cat. no. 4228.0):
“Literacy skills are becoming increasingly important in contemporary Australian society. In 2006, just over half of Australians aged 15-74 years had adequate or better prose (54%) and document (53%) literacy skills. Although these rates are slightly higher than those in 1996 they still represent a high proportion of people who may be at a disadvantage in finding employment, completing documents and performing other tasks. “
- Just 17-18 % of Australians, approximately 1 in 6, have the high order literacy skills needed to comprehend and accurately interpret legal documents prepared by lawyers with some 47%, almost half the population, not capable of this high-order document reading skill.
- The summary report statement, people with jobs were more likely to be assessed as having the skill levels needed to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work than were the unemployed or those not in the labour force highlighted the fact that unemployed people, i.e. one of Centrelink core client groups, have the lowest levels of document functional literacy skills.
- “While three-quarters of people surveyed scored below level 3 in at least one domain, just over one-third (36%) were below level 3 in all four domains.”
- This ABS data raises the Procedural Fairness and Error of Law questions as to why, a decade of the release of the 2006 Adult Life skills Report, AGS lawyers, in violation of both Model Litigant Rules and the statutory obligation to ensure that AAT hearing are informal, continue to serve formal ‘T’ documents on functionally illiterate welfare recipients who are incapable of discerning that much of the information in these documents is, in law, unreliable evidence that an impartial court would reject? Any fatalities caused by this apparently deliberate “Stupefy and Overwhelm” functionally illiterate people are unlawful homicides in some Australian states, e.g. s. 302.4 in Queensland and s. 279.4 in Western Australia. In South Australia, deliberately placing people under duress that they commit suicide is murder under s. 13.7 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935).
- The well-known functional literacy problems would also seriously inhibit awareness by some respondents to Centrelink demands for repayment that some of the legal precedents used in AGS prepared ‘T’ documents, i.e. all of the AAT determinations that were not based up findings made by a court, are, in law, legally invalid. (Possibly every decision made since November 1976.)
- In the 2014 AAT case that I was involved in, the withholding of the of the phone call recording and my statements that incorrect advice represented a Commonwealth error that the applicant had acted on in good faith was disregarded by the presiding AAT Member.
- Paragraph 42 in the unconstitutional Findings issues in AATA (???) was what Queensland’s Chief Justice, Tim Carmody, might consider describing as a Dickensian Bleak House farce with the tribunal contradicting s. 1,237A of the Social Security Act with this insightful statement that could be a precedent that invalidates all of Centrelink’s “Account payable” claims: <Redacted>’s contention that she acted in reliance of incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials security recipients. This circumstance is not o unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance” for the purpose of s 1237AAD(b) of the SSA
22.This AAT finding, which is inconsistent with the concept of a fair and just determination, is a (quasi-legal) precedent that has the potential to nullify ALL of Centrelink claims for the repayment of alleged overpayments for it acknowledges that Commonwealth errors are a normal systemic problem.
Directive 5 (i) of the Model Litigant Rules also specifies not requiring the other party to prove a matter the Commonwealth or agency knows to be true.
What the AAT finding did was acknowledge that a commonwealth error had occurred, asper 1,237A, and then dismissed that as valid grounds for the appeal, i.e. “…incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance.” As far as this tribunal was concerned, Commonwealth errors, in the form of incorrect advice given by Centrelink’s call centre operators, are so commonplace that these errors do not qualify as exceptional circumstances that would have been grounds for waiving the debt!
- Ditto for this equally remarkable statement: “This circumstance is not so unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance”
- Again, the Presiding Member was stating was that Commonwealth errors, i.e. mistakes, are so common that they are part of the normal experience of welfare recipients and therefore are not grounds for waiving the debt.
- AAT findings like these make a complete farce out of the Model Litigant Directives.
- Directive 5 (i) deals with not appealing from a decision unless there are reasonable prospects for success or it is otherwise justified in the public interest.”
25 With AAT decisions like that above, how can the Commonwealth fail to have “reasonable prospects for success”? However, the question of such “success” being in the public interest raises the matter of fact, ignored by the AAT Member in the above-mentioned case, that the suicide rate amongst welfare recipients is absolutely staggering, i.e. 23,254 suicides in the 10-year period 1997 – 2006 1 in 3 was an unemployed person, i.e. about 7,700 people who committed suicide were unemployed and Centrelink did not include even one of these fatalities in official reports during this period.
An issue that needs to investigated is the possibility that tort actions by Centrelink are a significant reason, if not the primary reason, why Australia’s top suicide categories contain a high proportion of Centrelink clients.
- Centrelink’s actions when attempting to recover alleged overpayments are extremely traumatizing to many people, a fact evidenced in the AAT hearing, in statements made by Andrew Wilkie MP, the suicide email shown on page 95 of volume 2 of The Emcott Report. To these examples can be added the numerous first-person reports of the emotional trauma caused by Centrelink that are contained in current affairs segments that have been broadcast by the ABC, Channel 7 and Channel 9 television networks.
- Article 3 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees “security of person and the right to life.” The cavalier violation of these human rights obligations, which are included in human rights treaties ratified by the Commonwealth of Australia in 1976, are violated by Centrelink, and by extension, the Turnbull Government, with the current, recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional, fraudulent, human rights violating “account payable” demands being sourced from the data contained in Centrelink’s dysfunctional 35-year-old ‘Integrated Social Infrastructure System’ computer network.
- The Original Commonwealth Error: No ability to data match in real time.
Although prepared in good faith, the original specifications for the purchase of what is now known as the ISIS computer system were inadequate as they specified a computer system that was not fit for the intended purpose. A s specified, the system required very high levels of manual data input that then required manual report generation to cross-check the data that had been input. The purchase of the IBM 204 ISIS database system was therefore the
original underlying Commonwealth error that has resulted in billions of dollars in overpayments. It is therefore a significant matter of fact that none of the people from whom Centrelink is seeking to recover overpayments had input into this purchase decision and therefore cannot be held liable for downstream overpayment errors that were caused by the inadequate data-matching capabilities of the system.
30-years of using a computer system that was never suitable for its originally intended purpose, a fact demonstrated by the need for a reported 50 million keystrokes of data entry per day and, until recently, the need to manually generate data-matching reports, was bad management by a string of federal governments. Over the years, efforts by system administrators to have the system replaced were unsuccessful, After all this time, is quite reasonable that new data-matching software is now discovering Commonwealth errors that have accumulated over a period of decades due to the inability of the system to make real-time data-matches that would have enabled data checking and overpayment corrections with in the 6-week waiver of debt period.
- Directive 5 (j) requires an apology where the Commonwealth is in error, However, in March 2000, legislation was unintentional extinguished and investigators, prosecutors, defence lawyers and the judiciary all failed to notice this critical Commonwealth error. As a direct consequence, some 15,000 welfare recipients were prosecuted for a non-existent crime!
When Malgorzata Poniatowska appealed her conviction for a non-existent crime all the way to the High Court, on August 4th 2011, the Federal Parliament set aside duty of agency obligations, human rights obligations, and the Model Litigant obligations and passed retrospective legislation that was intended to “fix” the 11-year-long blunder.
- On May 8th 2013, the High Court handed down its Findings in DPP (Cth) v. Keating (HCA 20) and in paragraph 43, quite rightly dismissed the retrospective legislation as “statutory fiction.”
MATTERS OF FACT -SET #5 – Human Rights Obligations.
In the AAT case that I was involved in, I pointed out that the applicant had human rights that needed to be respected. I was literally left dumb-founded when the AGS lawyer representing Finn Pratt, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, requested that the issue of human rights be left for “other courts” to decide. I was then further emotionally and mentally ‘poleaxed’ when the Presiding Member failed to reject that outrageous request.
There are at least 6 human rights treaties have been ratified by the Commonwealth of Australia and 5 other treaties contained human rights that may have been applicable in this hearing, e.g. the right to a fair hearing in which the Commonwealth was not allowed to withhold or destroy evidence. The Secretary of the DSS, Finn Pratt, has never had the constitutional or legal authority to request that these treaties be set aside. Likewise, the presiding AAT Member also has never had the constitutional or statutory authority to accede to that request. However, by act of omission, i.e. the failure to immediate rule that request ‘Out of Order’, this request to deliberately violate the human rights of the applicant was acceded to by the tribunal.
The following information is copied from the Australian Human Rights Commission’s Briefing Paper No. 4. The human rights principles summarised in this document are an independent commentary on human rights obligations that I believe were unlawfully compromised or violated in that AAT hearing that I had participated in. These rights were subsequently either disregarded or not were adequately considered in the appeal that I subsequently lodged with the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Note that page 101 of volume 2 of The Emcott Report which contains a redacted copy of the response from the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Lawful Limits on Fundamental Freedoms
Many fundamental freedoms are guaranteed by international human rights law. They include the freedoms of expression, movement and choice of residence, peaceful assembly and association, and the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief.
All human rights and fundamental freedoms are subject to the general rule that no-one has the right to ‘engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms’ recognised elsewhere.
Some freedoms cannot be restricted by governments in the interests of balancing other competing interests. These ‘absolute freedoms’ include freedom from torture, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom to hold opinions without interference.
Other freedoms, ‘limitable freedoms’, can be restricted by governments within defined boundaries with the aim of protecting competing interests. These restrictions or limitations are themselves constrained by international human rights law. A lawful limitation is one that satisfies at least five criteria.
- It must be provided by law or, in the case of limits on peaceful assembly, imposed in conformity with the law.
- The objective must be one or more from the following exhaustive list: protection of national security and/or public safety, protection of public order (ordre public), protection of public health or morals, protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
- It must be necessary to achieve its objective.
- It must operate without discrimination.
- It must be exceptional and not impair the essence of the freedom itself.
In his speech, titled the “Age of Entitlement is Over”, presented on 17th April 2012, to the London Institute of Economic Affairs, Joe Hockey’s advocated the human rights violating withholding of subsistence allowances. He stated, “The entitlements bestowed on tens of millions of people by successive governments, fuelled by short-term electoral cycles and the politics of outbidding your opponents is, in essence, undermining our ability to ensure democracy, fair representation and economic sustainability for future generations.” … “It is ironic that the entitlements system seems to be the most obvious and prevalent in some of the most democratic societies…Most undemocratic nations are simply unable to afford the largesse of universal entitlement systems. So, ultimately the fiscal impact of popular programs must be brought to account no matter what the political values the government are or how popular a spending program may be. Let me put it this way the age of entitlement is over. We should not take this is cause for despair.”
Given that Joe Hockey was on a taxpayer funded Member of Parliament’s base salary of about $210,000-a-year at the time, it is completely understandable why he personally had “no cause for despair” about leaving impoverished people without any means to subsist.
During Question Time on 30th September 2014, Prime Minister Tony Abbott made his views on human rights versus saving money very when he stated,
“I am all in favour of rights. I am also in favour of the rights of taxpayers not to have their money abused. I am in favour of the rights of taxpayers to say that young people should be doing the right thing by themselves and by our society.”
That statement was Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s response to the Joint Party on Human Rights Committee’s rejection of a Bill before the Australian Parliament that would have deprived young unemployed people of a subsistence allowance for a period of 6 months. It should be noted that this is the 2nd attempt involving Mr. Abbott to violate constitutional and human rights by deliberately depriving vulnerable people of the means to survive for a period of 6-months.
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are disregarded”
The word “disregarded” implies a knowledge and an awareness of the facts and it also implies a failure to acknowledge and act on those facts when some form of action is required.
There are 4 common reasons for disregarding facts that require some form of action:
- Disbelief – a refuse to accept the facts because they challenge or offend a person’s believe system.
- Incredulity – a person’s inability to accept the facts.
- Indifference – a lack of concern for the consequences implicit in the facts of the matter.
Any explanation as to why the civil rights of several million vulnerable Australians of have been violated over a period measured in decades and any comprehensive understanding of why the death toll caused by these civil rights violations are officially regarded as “irrelevant” simply cannot be answered in a single document written in a few days by one person.
The need for a national and state royal commissions into the failure of child protection agencies to protect children from sexual abuse and sometimes fatal physical abuses are a symptom of societal dysfunction. When the report into the death of 4-year-old Chloe Valentine was released, a News Ltd columnist, Andrew Bolt, describes South Australia as a toxic state. However, news ltd columnist Ken McGregor had no qualms about committing criminal defamation when he described welfare recipients as “cheats”; an offence that is a matter of law for the courts, not journalists, to determine. Ken McGregor’s article also contained an unconstitutional, human rights violating ‘survey’ question may have been an attempt to encourage the general public to accept genocidal welfare policies that violate international criminal laws, i.e. “When should job seekers have their payments reduced? Implicit in this question is the presumed right to place lives in danger if job seekers do not meet arbitrary expectations that may in fact be unconstitutional. To the question, how can these things be happening, is the equally relevant question as to what other wrongs are happening?
- The constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth are binding on the courts, judges and the people, and yet the Federal Police refuse to investigate far too many politicians who may have violated the same criminal statutes that has seen welfare recipients. The Slipper case may have been the exception to this policy:
A former Speaker, Peter Slipper, was prosecuted and convicted on three counts of violating s135.1 (5) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. The charges stated, “That in the Australian Capital Territory he dishonestly caused a risk of loss to a person, namely the Department of Finance and Deregulation, which is a Commonwealth entity, knowing or believing that there was a substantial risk of the loss occurring.”
- 20 January 2010 (CC13/40001);
- 12 April 2010 (CC13/40002);
- 27 June 2010 (CC13/40003).
In September 2014, at a sentencing hearing in the ACT Magistrates court, the Crown Prosecutor wanted to ‘throw the book’ at Peter Slipper, as this comment reveals; “Peter Slipper committed a fraud and has shown no contrition”.
The above statement by the Crown prosecutor raises the legitimate question as just how much contrition have the following politicians shown for possible rorting of the Parliamentary Entitlements Fund by failing to comply with the easy-to-understand Parliamentary Entitlement Rules contained in section 4.6.4 of the Entitlement Rules:
- Tony Abbott –(A reported $9,400. A former Rhodes scholar with a law degree, Mr. Abbott “ought to have known” that using his Parliamentary Travel Card for travel costs when promoting the launch of his book “Battle Lines”, was not Consistent with the entitlement rules.
- Bronwyn Bishop – A reported $5,200 for a helicopter flight from Melbourne to Geelong to attend a Victorian liberal party function.
- Sussan Ley – 16 trips to the Gold Coast that apparently did not comply with the rules in 4.6.4 of the entitlements rules.
Compliance with the entitlements rules is simple because the advice and support of Entitlements Managers who effectively act on behalf the Finance Minister in advising on eligible entitlements spending. If any ‘mistake’ is made in wrongly claiming entitlements, the most likely reason is a voluntary physical act of omission as per s. 4 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
4.1 Physical elements
(1) A physical element of an offence may be:
(a) conduct; or
(b) a result of conduct; or
(c) a circumstance in which conduct, or a result of conduct, occurs.
(2) In this Code:
conduct means an act, an omission to perform an act or a state of affairs.
engage in conduct means:
(a) do an act; or
(b) omit to perform an act.
(1) Conduct can only be a physical element if it is voluntary.
(2) Conduct is only voluntary if it is a product of the will of the person whose conduct it is.
135.2 Obtaining financial advantage
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(aa) as a result of that conduct, the person obtains a financial advantage for himself or herself from another person; and
(ab) the person knows or believes that he or she is not eligible to receive that financial advantage; and
(b) the other person is a Commonwealth entity.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.
Politicians, especially senior politicians, who claim entitlements by ignoring the entitlements rules and by failing to consult with Entitlements Managers before signing off on claims are making voluntary acts of omission that enable them to obtain a financial advantage from the Commonwealth that they are not entitled to receive. To refuse to investigate these alleged rorting incidents on the unconstitutional grounds of “Gravity/sensitivity” or the equally spurious “government protocols” is to create a procedural fairness violation, i.e. Apprehended bias or Manifest ostensible Bias, that could potentially invalidate the prosecution of any other person who may have been charged with, or convicted of, violations. 135 of these criminal statutes.
“To allow these proceedings to remain in the Court would bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right-thinking people and would be manifestly unfair to Mr Slipper:”
Justice Steven Rares Ashby v Commonwealth of Australia
(No.4)  FCA 1411 at 197
GENOCIDE & CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act is not only a criminally reckless, unconstitutional law that is intended to endanger life, it is a violation of international criminal statutes contained in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:
THE ROME STATUTE: Article 6 – Genocide [For ‘group’, read ‘welfare recipients’.]
6 (a), 6 (b) and 6 (c)
THE ROME STATUTE: Article 7 – Crimes against humanity
7 (1). For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(e Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
2For the purpose of paragraph 1:
(a) “Attack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
(b) “Extermination” includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia, the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;
(c) “Enslavement” means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population” means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
(e) “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
(g) “Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;
(h) “The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;
In one form or another, the unconstitutional, sometimes lethal ‘No Show, No Pay No Survive’ law violates commonwealth, state, territory and international laws. When fatalities occur, they are MURDER under Article 7 (1) (a) of the Rome Statute and under homicide laws in every state and territory in Australia. Despite these legal realities, the official policy of the Australian federal Police is very clearly identifiable in Federal Agent Pearce’s email, i.e. The Australian Federal Police does not want to know because the Australian Federal police do not intend to do anything about these crimes.
It is therefore perhaps no surprise that politicians rort the entitlements fund with impunity; it is because the Australian Federal police actively provided immunity from prosecution. In the same manner, it is understandable that politicians also believe and act on the assumption that they have the right to persecute, defraud and murder welfare recipients. Whilst they have never had this right, the failure of the Australian Federal police, and a number of other agencies that take their lead from the actions of the Federal police, to act to hold accountable those responsible for the ruthless persecution of welfare recipients has only encouraged the flagrant violations of civil rights that are currently occurring.
To fail to hold accountable those responsible for the current Abuse of Public Office crime wave is to encourage it.
Nation-wide, community concern is mounting:
Opposition to these criminal abuses of power are also becoming highly sophisticated as the YouTube video link at the beginning of the communication clearly demonstrates.
To do nothing about these crimes means that s. 12.3 may also apply to the Australian federal Police:
12.3 Fault elements other than negligence
(1) If intention, knowledge or recklessness is a fault element in relation to a physical element of an offence, that fault element must be attributed to a body corporate that expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted the commission of the offence.
(2) The means by which such an authorisation or permission may be established include:
(a) proving that the body corporate’s board of directors intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carried out the relevant conduct, or expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted the commission of the offence;
No-one is above the law; the word “people” in paragraph 5 of the constitution includes, politicians, public servants, judges, lawyers and police officers. However, if no action is taken under Australian laws, then there is always the United Nations Human Rights commission, and as a last resort, there is Article 17.1 (a) and 17 2 (b) and 17 .2 (c) of the Rome Statute:
Issues of admissibility
1 Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
- In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable:
(b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice;
(c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.
After some 40 years of hiding the death toll caused by welfare penalties and fraudulent tort actions, there are four Public Interest Questions of Law that I colloquially call ‘The Awesome Foursome’ that need to be answered.
PUBLIC INTEREST- Questions of Law: ‘The Awesome Foursome’
- What is the total number of [unconstitutional] Breaching penalties that have been issued to-date?
- How many [fraudulent] ‘Account payable’ demands have been made to welfare recipients?
- How many people with disabilities have been denied a pension?
- How many people never survived the above abuses of power, i.e. how many people has the Federal Parliament murdered?
However satisfactory and reasonable the “gravity/sensitivity”: and “government protocols” excuses offered by Federal Agent Louise Denley and Federal Agent Pearce may seem to be to you and your case evaluation staff, when it comes to the ICC jurisdictional issue of “inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice”, it is a matter of fact that unconstitutional, unlawful excuses contained in these two Federal Police communications tick-all-of-the-boxes for providing jurisdiction for an ICC investigation.
Ultimately, the decision as to whether-or-not an ICC investigation will occur resting in your hands. If you uphold the law in accordance with the constitution and Due process of law, there will no legal grounds for an ICC investigation. However, should you decide to defend the status quo, i.e. do nothing, then, by yours act of omission, you will provide jurisdiction for an ICC investigation.
Please, decide wisely, for the range of public interest questions could engage any diligent inquiry in the resolving of public interest questions that may perhaps be best described as:
Public Interest ‘Awkward’ Questions.
The constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth shall be BINDING on the Courts, judges and the people:
- Quite clearly, federal politicians and police officers are people and are therefore subject to this binding provision. Why then are the Federal Police quarantining from investigation, un unconstitutional policy that violates Due Process of Law and very effectively quarantines politicians from accountability before the courts?
- Is this unconstitutional Federal Police policy Broad Ultra Vires, i.e. does it totally undermine the concept of Rule of Law in Australia by enabling any person charged with a criminal offence to mount a valid Apprehended Bias or a Manifest ostensible Bias Defence?
- By failing to uphold the law when concerns about the legality of federal welfare policies and practices were first raised with the federal Police, how much unlawful harm in the form emotional trauma, financial loss, cruel and unusual treatment, e.g. extreme deprivation, reckless endangerment, and loss of life has occurred?
- How many violations of criminal laws, state, territory, federal and international, have occurred because the Australian Federal Police have placed unconstitutional “government policies” and “gravity/sensitivity” ahead of upholding the law?
- There is not constitutional or statutory right for a police officer, whether state, territory, or federal, to refuse to accept complaints from the public that express concern that criminal laws may have been violated by public officials. The “See something, hear something, say something”, advertising campaigns of various Australian police forces underscores the fact that hearsay from any source is adequate grounds for an investigation if the hearsay indicates that violations of criminal laws may have occurred. Why then has the Australian Federal Police adopted a blanket policy of refused to accept complaints from me?
- How independent and how effect is the Australian Federal Police as a bulwark of society when it colludes with Federal Governments who Members may have rorted the Parliamentary Entitlements system?
- Apart from Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, how many other Australians have died because of unconstitutional agreements between the Federal Police and Federal Government ministers?
- How many of these unconstitutional agreements has the Australian Federal Police entered into since being established?
- How many of these agreements are backed by statute law?
- How many of these agreements have been the subject of independent inquiries by courts or other entities with the jurisdiction to review such agreements?
- When your appointment was first made public there were reports in the mass media that you had been the personal choice of prime Minister Tony Abbott. This raises the valid questions as to the reason why Mr. Abbott selected you. Were you appointed because of your highly acclaimed skills and personal integrity as a law enforcement officer, or were you appointed by Prime Tony Abbott because he was certain that when it came to the sensitive issue of any fatalities that may been caused by the Howard government’s illegal enforcement of the lethally dangerous and unconstitutional Performance Indicator Targets , you could be relied upon to “see no evil” if questions about these homicides were raised.
- In 14.6.7 of Report of the Royal commission into the Home Improvement Program, Commissioner Hanger stated, “Officers must be supported to engage with personal risk when giving advice, rather than to remain complicit with a particular approach thought to be favoured by the Minister or a political adviser. Senior officials must likewise satisfy themselves that advice concerning risks is accurate, independent, and comprehensive. Additionally, advice on risk, whether delivered in a written submission or verbally, should not be pitched at such a high level that it is impossible for the Minister to discern real tangible risks ther
- What advice have you and your senior officers given to the Turnbull Government about the foreseeable risks to people with mental health problems of skipping Due Process of Law to recover alleged overpayments to welfare recipients, e.g. what are the risks in Centrelink staff phoning a person with serious mental health problems, that may not have been diagnosed due to lengthy delays in accessing mental health services, and telling these people that they owe thousands of dollars that must be repaid in days or their house will be sold to recover the alleged debt?
- Have you, or any of your senior officers ever read any of the Australian Institute of Health & Welfare reports or public agency reports on the risk factors inherent in what I very publicly refer to as the Tudge Fudge Fraud, e.g. the Anglicare Tasmania response to the Inquiry into the Provision of Mental Health Services in Australia?
- This can be downloaded from the following URL and the risk factors identified on pages 4 – 7 of this report are matters of fact that raise significant credible questions about the methods used by successive federal governments to recover alleged over-payments from welfare recipients who may be potentially suicidal:
- Am I correct in my views that by-passing the courts and/or withholding evidence in order to recover alleged overpayments constitutes violations of criminal laws, human rights obligations, due process of law, and procedural fairness principles?
A question all Australians, especially victims of the Tudge Fudge Fraud, are entitled to receive is an answer to is whether the widespread, and still growing, concern about the Turnbull Government’s alleged “debt” recovery actions. Are this actions legally valid and justifiable, or are they a criminal abuse of power and are therefore not justified? If these actions are unlawful, this criminal activity needs to be halted and the those responsible held accountable before the courts.
The concerns of Australia’s most vulnerable people need to addressed and if the Australian Federal Police are still, ot upholding the law, then, by default, the task becomes a matter for international agencies to address.
Australian citizen, genocide survivor and a Christian volunteer lay advocate.
Other recommended YouTube videos:
The Tudge Fudge Fraud
The Tudge Fudge Fraud – Part 2
Waivergate – Part 1
Waivergate – Part 2
Waivergate – Part 3
Assembling Ikea furniture in the dark
CHILCOT REPORT ISSUES (and John Howard’s other lethal lies)
Burn Notice: The Others
Genocide in Australia: Evidence for the ICC to consider
The Culleton factor
Centrelink Prosecutions: Bunging a spanner in the works.
Are Centrelink penalties unconstitutional?
Centrelink and the 6 week Rule.
Murder by Legislation: The Canberra Killers Club.
Centrelink’s Secret Breaching Triggered death Toll.
DON’T FORGET TO RE-WATCH:
Centrelink fail – Honest Government Advert