Part 3: Australia’s irrelevant crimes against humanity: The destruction of the ANZAC Legacy.

Yarra sinkingAustralia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity trample on the ANZAC LEGACY. Did the crew of HMAS Yarra, and another 100,000 courageous ANZACs fight and die so that 40 or 50 years later, the Australian Federal Parliament could ruthlessly abandon their children or their grand-children to total destitution and possible death?

NOTE #1: This article is in 4 major parts:

Note #2″ The short link URL for this posting is:

  1. A brief history of the Gallipoli landing and the incredible fight against overwhelming odds by HMAS Yarra.
  2. The death of Sarah, a 79 year woman who was overwhelmed by incredible odds – a fraudulent claim by Centrelink that hounded her to death.
  3. Insight into what government ministers and bureaucrats say about Centrelink’s clapped out “Turbo-charged Commodore 64 …with spoilers”, “Walkman era” computer system and “the 50 million transactions per day that costs hundreds of millions of dollars a year.”
  4. Your legal and human rights when dealing with a demand by Centrelink for repayment of money. This includes case law references that can be used to rebut Centrelink’s fraudulent claims.

 You can scroll down to any section that you like, but I hope that you read Sections 1 & 2 as they are true stories that may help you if Centrelink ever dumps on you.

[P.S. The URL short link for this posting is: ]


The Legacy of Heroes – The Inspiration to make the world a better place.

  •  Suddenly I realised that I was resigned to all this. I did not like it – I never would – but I accepted it. It was, as I had said, our heritage. This was our world. We could not help what it was like, but by God, we could take it as it was, as it had been left to us, and some day, perhaps we would shatter it to bits and then remould it nearer to our heart’s desire.    WE WERE THE RATS, page 256 Lawson Glassop ©1944                            Horwitz Australian Library 3rd edition 1965

 In 1946, returned service personnel helped to amend paragraph 51 of the constitution so that battlers would always have a helping hand in hard times.

 The Legacy of Cowards.

  •  As it still is in 2015, in FY 2000-01 Breaching was unconstitutional, a violation of legal rights and fundamental human rights. It was deliberately targeted at people who were impoverished, with a high proportion struggling with poor literacy skills and/or serious mental health problems like Depression. Breaching was deliberately intended to prevent these people from meeting even their most basic costs of living for a period of 3-months. Therefore, Breaching was the wilful exposure of life to peril and that constitutes a crime.”
  1.  When, in one year, a national government sets out to deprive 346,078 vulnerable people of the ability to survive without any means of subsistence for a period of 3-months, it is reasonable to assume that this government will achieve some degree of success in preventing the survival of some of the victims who were deliberately placed in peril.
  2. In April 2015, the death toll caused by welfare penalties remains unreported by welfare bureaucrats and is classified as both “confidential” and “irrelevant” by the Australian Federal Parliament!

  Gallipoli (1915) and the sinking of HMAS Yarra (1942).

On the 25th April 2015, Australian and New Zealand will celebrate the 100th anniversary of ‘Gallipoli’, one of the defining moments in the history of these two nations. In the pre-dawn hours of the 25th April 1915, Australian and New Zealand soldiers were part of a British military expedition force that invaded Turkey with the intention of forcing that nation to stop supporting Germany in the war being fought in Europe and the Middle East at that time.

The invasion was a total stuff-up because the ANZAC forces had been landed in the wrong place and the Turkish defenders were courageous, very skilled, and committed to driving the invaders back into the sea. Gallipoli was a disastrous, horrific bloodbath that was concealed from the public behind a seemingly impenetrable barrier of military secrecy and censorship. Fortunately for the ANZAC troops, Keith Murdock an Australian journalist saw first-hand what was happening. 8,000 young Aussies were dead; a cruel fact hidden behind a wall of military censorship which concealed the horror of the Gallipoli blunder, Murdock took it upon himself to personally write to the Australian prime minister and make known the truth that Gallipoli was a fiasco which was draining away the lives of the gallant ANZAC forces. Thanks to his courage in smuggling out the truth, political and public outrage led to the withdrawal of the invading expeditionary forces. Although the invasion had been a military disaster that had ended in defeat, just like the United States War of Independence, the courage and spirit of the ANZAC soldiers had served to unify and develop a powerful sense of national identity in the fledgling, newly proclaimed nations of Australia and New Zealand.

The ANZAC troops went on to fight bravely in the Middle East and on the bloody killing fields in France at places like Fromelles. Although tens of thousands died, many left behind wives and children. In 1918, the survivors of the “war to end all wars” came home and got on with the job of nation-building. They started families and as the years passed, lived with the belief that their children would grow up in a world un-marred by the horrors of war. Sadly, they were wrong.

In September 1939, Australia was once again at war and so some of the old diggers put on new uniforms and helped to train and lead a new generation of ANZACs in the brutal art of war. On December 7th 1941, Japanese naval forces attacked the United States with a devastating attack at Pearl Harbour. At the same time, Japanese military forces launched widespread attacks throughout South-East Asia and the defending allied forces, drained of adequate naval and air power resources by the war in Europe, the Mediterranean, and in North Africa, lacked the assets needed to repel the Japanese attacks. Overwhelmed by the Japanese, retreat to Australia was the only viable option for the battered remnants of allied military forces operating in the Philippines and Indonesia.

Yarra at seaIn the ANZAC tradition: HMAS YARRA.

At 6.30am on 4th March 1942, a small convoy of merchant ships that were fleeing from Java to Australia were attacked by 3 massive pocket-battle ship sized Takao class heavy cruisers, the most powerful cruisers in the Japanese navy. These ships were escorted by heavily armed large Kagero class fleet destroyers.

TakaoThese ships had awesome firepower; with every broadside the massive cruisers could hurl 30 shells, containing some 3 tonnes of explosives, against ships that were 20 kilometres away. The small minesweeper MMS 51, was blasted and sunk leaving only the anti-submarine sloop HMAS Yarra to protect the convoy from this marauding heavy cruiser squadron.

HMAS Yarra was specifically designed to fight against submarines and E-boats, not giant fleet destroyers and pocket-battleship sized heavy cruisers that were twice as long as a football field. HMAS Yarra simply never stood a chance again this heavy cruiser squadron. The ‘sensible’ thing to do would have been to immediately scuttle HMAS Yarra and surrender. The day before this squadron had attacked and sunk a US warship, in just a few minutes and had then machine-gunned the lifeboats and life rafts.

Despite the awesome odds that HMAS Yarra faced, Lieutenant-Commander Bob Rankin, the young captain of HMAS Yarra, had no thought of surrendering. Rankin promptly issued an order to ‘warn the office’ and let the Admiralty in Fremantle know that the convoy was being attacked by a squadron of enemy warships.

Rankin then ordered the convoy to scatter and proceeded to lay down a protective smokescreen by placing Yarra between the enemy and the convoy. Whilst the 3 guns of HMAS Yarra could destroy a surfaced submarine or an attacking motor torpedo boat, these small 100mm (4”) anti-aircraft guns were vastly outranged by the heavy cruisers’ 205mm (8”) guns and could do little more than spoil the paintwork even if they did score a hit on one of these heavily armoured cruisers.

However, such was the tactical skill of Lieutenant-Commander Rankin, and such was the tenacious, fierce response of her gun crews that incredibly, HMAS Yarra survived and fought for an astounding 90 minutes. Only when the ship was a shattering sinking wreck did Lieutenant-Commander Rankin give the order to abandon ship. Tragically, moments later, he was killed by a direct hit on the ship’s bridge.

One man can sometimes make a difference.

Buck taylorOne man. Leading Seaman Ron (Buck) Taylor, disobeyed Rankin’s order to abandon ship as he literally stuck to his gun.

When two destroyers closed in on the Yarra, possibly with the intention of machine gunning the survivors, he opened fire on the destroyers with the one 4” gun that still worked. Whilst a 4” shell could not hurt the cruisers, it could seriously damage the unarmoured destroyers. If a shell hit a destroyer’s torpedo tubes, it could blow the ship to pieces. Hidden by smoke and flames, the lone sailor’s bravery forced the 2 destroyers to stand-off and so any plan to machine gun the survivors was thwarted.

As powerful as the heavy cruisers may have been, they are exceptionally vulnerable to attacks by submarines, a point driven home 2 years later on the 23rd October 1944 when 2 of the cruisers that sank the HMAS Yarra were sunk by 2 US submarines; the IJN Atago was sunk by the USS Darter and the IJN Maya was sunk by the USS Dace.

HMAS Yarra’s valiant 90 minute fight had left the attacking cruiser squadron very vulnerable to such an attack by any allied submarine which may have been drawn to the battle by the sound of the gunfire. Taking time to machinegun the convoy’s survivors was therefore not a prudent option for the squadron’s commander who immediately withdrew from the scene of battle once HMAS Yarra was sunk. Whilst 71 of the survivors were subsequently rescued by passing ships, 34 survivors on life rafts were not spotted. Consequently, several days later when they were finally rescued by a Dutch submarine, only 13 of these men were still alive. It is from the 84 survivors of this short but savage one-sided battle that the story of HMAS Yarra’s epic, courageous fight against overwhelming odds is known.

A propaganda version of the sinking of HMAS Yarra was published by the Sydney Morning Herald on 17th March 1942. Some facts were deliberately falsified in this report and the heroic fight by HMAS Yarra is somewhat down-played to prevent public concern about the might of the Japanese naval forces that were operating close to Australia’s northern coastline. )

If HMAS Yarra had not fought so valiantly, and if Buck Taylor had not sacrificed his life to single-handedly fight off the circling destroyers, it is highly probable that there may have been no convoy survivors at all. In the tradition of the ANZACs, the story of the sinking of HMAS Yarra is a saga of incredible heroism under impossible circumstances.

 However, the shocking sequel to the HMAS Yarra sinking is the appalling way in which the Australian federal parliament has treated their descendants! For insight into how some of the descendants of the ANZACs and our nation’s other war heroes have been slaughtered, please read the true story of how ruthlessly uncaring bureaucrats overwhelmed Sarah.


SARAH’S STORY: Hounded to death by Centrelink.

When it comes to a one-sided fight against overwhelming odds, you don’t have to join the military. The true story of what happened to a Queensland woman, ‘Sarah’, drives home the point that a national government with an uncaring attitude of reckless indifference to the plight of vulnerable people can be just as dangerous as any marauding fleet of warships.

 Sarah was 79-years old when she died in 2005 and since she was born in Britain, she was not a descendant of any of the ANZACs who fought at Gallipoli. However, it is possible that some of her family members fought with the ANZACs at Gallipoli or in the muddy hell poetically known as “Flanders Fields”.

 At first glance the death of ‘Sarah’ appears to be from natural causes but a closer scrutiny reveals that her death may have been the inevitable consequence of a brutally insensitive act of systemic fraud by Centrelink. She may have been un-caringly hounded to death by Centrelink in an attempt to recover alleged over-payments. There was scant regard, if any at all, for her life and almost certainly Centrelink violated what is the most basic of all human rights, the Right to Life.

Redacted Sarah Stat DecWhen you read the statutory declaration above that was written by one of her doctors, the key issue to consider is not ‘WHAT’ killed ‘Sarah’;’ rather it the question of ‘WHO’ killed her by imposing upon her “a stupefying and overwhelming thing”* that undermined her medical treatment by imposing traumatic stress of such intensity that her medical treatment was fatally compromised? (* A legal term used to describe an act that results in the unlawful death of a person.)

 The question of who, in a gross abuse of both lawful authority and due process of law, then ruthlessly raided ‘Sarah’s estate on behalf of the Abbott Government in 2014 is also a textbook ‘no-brainer’ question, for the in-your-face answer is the Secretary for the Department of Social Services.

 Centrelink literally hounded Sarah to death to recover overpayments that were made, according to Centrelink, because of a mistake by Sarah. However, all Centrelink claims against welfare recipients when recovering over-payments needs to considered in the light of the following ministerial statements made in press conferences in March 2015.



On March 9th 2015, the Perthnow website ran a story titled “Welfare IT system costing millons:Abbott”. I recommend that you pay very close attention in this article to these statements from the Social Services Minister, Scott Morrison. You will find this story at:

  •  “The antiquated system … is costing us tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs because data has to be re-entered manually time and time again,” he told reporters in Perth.
  •  “We need to have a proper computer system which is capable of ensuring that people get paid in a timely way … and that all of the administration is as efficient as it possibly can be.”
  •  “Now there are about 10 million welfare recipients, with $400 million spent on 50 million transactions every day.”
  •  “This is a system that still has manual processing attached to it, and it’s been left to basically wither for many years,” he told Sky News.

 Another news media report at that time contained the following statements:

 (Source: )

  •  “The current Department of Human Services ICT system has been built up since the early 1980s. It is now a labyrinth of inter­connected systems and code that makes it very difficult to implement even relatively straightforward changes in a timely manner, including changes to our standard letters,” Senator Payne told The Australian.
  • “Because the system has been built up bit by bit over three decades, it is now inflexible and costly to change.”
  • “The government is now considering a business case to replace the current ICT system and it is my firm belief that we cannot affor­d to keep the status quo.’’
  • “Changes need to be hard-coded into the payments system, which has 99 templates and 5000 pre-set paragraphs to create each personalised piece of mail.”
  • “They have to be repeated for each type of payment such as the pension, Newstart, Youth Allowance, family tax benefits and Disability Support Pension.”
  • “Up to 36 specialist IT teams comprising more than 100 public servants can be required to make and test the system. Updating ­details or a phone number on a letter can take three months and cost $20,000.”
  • “The McClure report, released last month, recommends simplifying the welfare system from 20 income-support payments with 55 supplements to five basic payments with four supplements.”
  • Department of Human Services secretary Kathryn Campbell told a recent Senate estimates hearing that while the existing computer could cope with minor adjustments, ‘it would be much better to invest in a new system to ensure integrity and flexibility’ “.
  • “While stressing that the government had made no decision, Ms Campbell told the Senate “hypo­thetically, it would not be a good investment” to try to implement the McClure changes with the current computer and “to do the entirety, we would recom­mend a new system”.
  • Mr Morrison has expressed his frustration with the computer, calling it “Walkman-era technology”, and believes a new system would immediately create efficiencies and allow greater data matching with other government agencies to crack down on rorters.
  • “You can’t fix the system if you can’t change the engine which drives that system and makes it work on the ground,” he said. “Even simple changes to policy can be time-consuming, expensive and can have unforeseen impacts on other parts of the system due to the tangled web of code that has been built up over the years.”
  • “When it was built 30 years ago, the computer paid out $10bn a year to 2.5 million people. Now it accounts for $100bn going to 7.3 million welfare recipients — at a rate of $400 million a day. Frequent changes to policy and payments have seen it grow to 30 million lines of code”.*


Ron Medlicott: Re that “30 million lines of code”:

Back in 1998 when I undertook training to become a Job Network recruitment consultant, one of the senior people responsible for the computer system pointed out to us trainees that at that time the dreaded “Y2K bug” (which was programming limitation that could not recognize 21st century dates) was a problem because the original computer system dated back to the 1950s, i.e. back in the ‘stone age’ of computing. We currently have a national welfare computer system servicing over 200 Centrelink offices and 26 call centres located nation-wide that is using 30 million lines of code, some of which dates back to the 1950s, and which includes, ‘back door’, ‘side door’ and ‘trap door’ flaws that can literally let any experienced hacker or national intelligence service into Centrelink’s computer system.

NOTE: According to a senior government official, the CIA has the only other  computer of this type still operating. (Well, that fact is no surprise is it?)


 This ancient computer system has been described by Senator Payne as “A turbo-charged Commodore 64 …with spoilers”. It is operated by some 4,000 people who are seriously over-worked, and in many cases, are also seriously under-trained. Centrelink’s 26 call centre operators receive just 6-weeks initial training and have to cope with mind-bogglingly massive workloads using this outdated computer system to service 7.3 million people. Even worse, Centrelink call-centre staff must work with 5,000 pages of complex statute laws which, in the last 20 years, have been subjected to hundreds of complex amendments, one of which saw 15,000 people convicted under a law that did not exist!

This is a system in which errors are the norm; so how do Centrelink and the Federal Government deal with over-payments that are a natural consequence of these systemic deficiencies? Let’s go back to a comment from the first URL which contains details of an interview that Scott Morrison gave to The Australian:

 Mr Morrison has expressed his frustration with the computer, calling it “Walkman-era technology”, and believes a new system would immediately create efficiencies and allow greater data matching with other government agencies to “crack down on rorters.”

 Rorters! If Centrelink’s inadequate computer system, and/or over-worked and under-trained staff, make overpayments to welfare recipients, then Scott Morison’s statement that welfare recipients are ‘rorters’ is blatantly defamatory for the very opposite is true.



As I stated in my last posting, if you dial 13 32 76, you will hear the statement “For your security, this call will be recorded.”

  • Whilst that may sound reassuring, the real-world situation is that if you are overpaid by Centrelink and the recording reveals that it was Centrelink’s fault, the recording will be ‘unavailable’ when Centrelink hits you with a fraudulent Account payable bill that will probably contain the deceptive, maliciously misleading statement, “We are therefore, required to recover this amount.”

 The truth is that the Social Security Act carries a “Waiver of debt due to Commonwealth error” provision in paragraph 1,237A. This states:

 (1) Subject to subsection (1A), the Secretary must waive the right to recover the proportion of a debt that is attributable solely to an administrative error made by the Commonwealth if the debtor received in good faith the payment or payments that gave rise to that proportion of the debt.

  •  The key word in this is “SOLELY” – if someone who receives an overpayment can be tricked into admitting to an alleged “mistake”, which can be as simple as not reading the bulk form letters that Centrelink sends out by the million, (literally) then it is your fault that Centrelink made a mistake and overpaid you.
  • Centrelink then badgers, bullies and intimidates impoverished welfare recipients with a DEMAND that the over-payments must be IMMEDIATELY repaid.
  • Since these over-payments which can amount to thousands of dollars, the effect of this bureaucratic ‘shock and awe’ bullying is to “stupefy and overwhelm” welfare recipients who do not know their legal rights.
  • However, as Scott Morrison made quite clear in his media interview, Centrelink staff make 50 million (keystroke?) entries every day that results in a ‘cost’ of hundreds of millions of dollars in a year.
  • That ‘cost’ includes erroneous over-payments, and Centrelink leaves no stone unturned, including destroying or withholding evidence, in order to get that money back.


After World war 1 finished in 1918, when the ANZAC soldiers returned home, they were loudly hailed as heroes, and then a perhaps no-so-grateful nation abandoned them as they would again when the Vietnam veterans came home 50 years later.

  • During the dark years of the Depression, “civil conscription” was introduced. Some unscrupulous employers would accept lucrative government contracts, sack their employees, and then demand that the government provide ‘suitable’ conscripted labour so that the contract could be fulfilled.
  • In reality, this meant that the sacked employees were re-hired, at little or no cost to the employer, and the government then paid workers just a fraction of the award rates.
  • Civil Conscription was a cruel con job that enabled employers to exploit their workers and make lucrative windfall profits.
  • In 2 world wars, over 100,000 ‘Diggers’ had died. The survivors were determined that they would not be ruthlessly exploited again if they fell on hard times again as had happened during the Depression and in Japanese slave-labour camps in Burma, Singapore, Malaya and Japan.
  • In 1946, when the soldiers, sailors and airmen (and women) returned, they were determined to ensure that the families of their mates would be taken care of. Mates who had been killed in action, or who had died in slave camps like the infamous Sandakan death camp where 2,390 prisoners, mostly ‘Aussie Diggers’, were murdered by the Japanese or killed by starvation, sickness and overwork. When allied forces arrived at the camp, just 6 of the ‘Diggers’ were still alive.

 THE REAL ANZAC LEGACY is Section 51, (xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution.

In 1946, they demanded a referendum and changed the Australian Constitution. Below is the enduring legacy that they gave to their families and their future descendants. It is Section 51, sub-paragraph xxiii(A) of the constitution which clearly reveals how they intended to ensure that in future Aussie Battlers would never again be so easily and ruthlessly exploited:

 The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:-

(xxiii) (A)   The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances:


Point #1: For the purpose of “peace, good order and good government”, the ANZAC Legacy amendment of the constitution requires that the Federal Parliament make laws for THE PROVISION of a welfare payment to needy people who are unemployed, sick, disabled, elderly, are students, or are parents looking after young children.

 Point # 2: “(but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription). The significance of this bracketed statement is that Civil Conscription, now called “Work for the Dole”, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Federal Parliament does not have the constitutional power, or the “jurisdiction” to make legislation that:

  • DEPRIVES a person of an unemployment benefit;
  • FORCES a person to work for the dole.

 A core purpose of civil conscription was to force people to perform work at below award rates, an exploitative situation that is currently enforced by the Federal Parliament that has for decades given a 1-finger-salute to the constitutional restriction that welfare payments cannot be used to force people to perform (underpaid) work against their will.

Why Centrelink has “No Jurisdiction”:

In 2002 the Australian High Court ruled in Minister for Immigration & Cultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] 209 CLR 597, that if there is no jurisdiction for a determination (or a decision), then there is “no decision at all”.

  • Over a period of some 4 decades, the Federal Parliament has deliberately exceeded its constitutional jurisdiction and authority.
  • Penalty provisions contained in the Social Security Act, have violated the Constitutional Rights, the Legal Rights, and the Human Rights of some 3 – 4 million Australians.
  • Alleged’ ‘violations’ of unconstitutional mutual obligations –“Work for the Dole” contract, have been used to justify the deliberate termination of welfare payments.
  • It is therefore no surprise that the fatalities triggered by this unconstitutional, human rights violating legislation are still unreported by DSS or Centrelink bureaucrats, and are also considered to be “irrelevant” by both politicians and at least one Crown Law lawyer who represents the Secretary of the Department of Social Services.


Australia has signed 7 human rights treaties, 6 of which apply to adults, i.e. people of 18 years of age or older. Australian politicians often make a big deal about the “Mutual Obligations” of welfare recipients. In doing so, federal politicians strongly emphasize “Obligations” whilst the Federal Parliament’s own “Mutual Obligations” are ignored.


 On 18 December 1972, Australia signed the International Convention for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and then ratified this human rights convention by treaty on 10 December 1975. These obligations are NOT ‘optional extras’ under “Mutual Obligations.”

 The ICESCR treaty imposes obligations upon the Federal Parliament that in recent times the Abbott Government has, by both word and deed, attempted to violate, possibly because of the false belief that the Australian Parliament cannot be held accountable for these violations.

 In 2014, Professor Ben Saul, one of Australia’s leading experts on international law and international treaty obligations made this statement:

“The Immigration Minister spat the dummy on international law saying: ‘This parliament should decide what our obligations are under these conventions – not those who seek to direct us otherwise from places outside this country, such as foreign courts or the United Nations.’  The Minister assured us that Australia would comply with its international obligations – which is presumably not difficult if international law is now simply what the government says it is.”

(Source: )

It is manifestly obvious to any fair-minded, rational thinking person that the Abbott Government places its ideological beliefs ahead of its Mutual Obligations under international treaties and laws. Every Australian citizen needs to demand that the Abbott Government fully complies with these international obligations.

 On 1st July 1983, in a controversial 4:3 decision, the High Court ruled in the Tasmanian Dams case, Commonwealth v Tasmania [1983] (HCA 21), that Australia’s international treaties took legal precedence over statute laws that contradict international treaty obligations.

  • This decision did far more than save a world heritage listed area of Tasmania; it placed a court enforceable constraint on the powers of Australian politicians to abuse the rights of Australian residents, whether they be citizens, refugees or aged pensioners like Sarah when human rights treaties are ignored or violated.
  • Enforceable in the courts, Australia’s ICESCR Treaty human rights obligations include:

 Article 2: “In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence” This is the ‘negative right’ not to deprive people of their only assured means of subsistence.

In Australia, that means that people cannot be deprived of a welfare allowance if they are unemployed, disabled, a pensioner, or a parent with young children, et cetera.

 Article 6: “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.”

  •  Not only do people have the right not to be forced to work against their will, e.g. to be forced to do Work for the Dole or be compelled to do “work experience”; having signed and ratified the ICESCR, the Australia Parliament must actually make laws to prevent any form of exploitative forced labour!
  • Forced labour against a person’s will is a form of slave labour that under international law is no different from the forced labour in the Japanese and Nazi German slave-labour camps.
  • This why Work for the Dole is a human rights violation and any deaths caused by this legislation are, (under Article 7 of the Rome Statute), a crime against humanity.

 Article 9: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance. In addition to having a constitutional right to welfare benefits is you are unemployed, under the ICESCR Treaty, it is also one of the basic human rights for all people in Australia who need assistance in order to subsist.


The most basic and fundamental right is the Right to Life. This is contained in Article 6 (1) of the International Convention for Civil and Political Rights. (ICCPR)

  Article 1: Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

  • Australian federal politicians and federal public servants should be/are well aware of this most basic of human rights as the following Copy and Paste extracts which were copied from the Australian Attorney-General’s web site reveals:

 “What is the right to life?”

“Under human rights law, countries and agents of the country must not deprive a person of life arbitrarily or unlawfully. Countries also have a duty to take appropriate steps to protect the right to life and to investigate arbitrary or unlawful killings and punish offenders.”

 “Australia has an obligation not to impose the death penalty, and also an obligation not to remove a person to another country where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of the person being subjected to the death penalty in that country.” Note this 2nd paragraph:

  1.  Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran are currently facing execution by firing squad in Indonesia because the Australian Federal Police passed on information to the Indonesian police knowing that this could result in as many as 9 Australian citizens facing the death penalty in Indonesia.
  2. In doing so, the Australian Federal Police violated both Australian laws and Australia’s human rights obligations to those people. Consequently, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, may be executed at any time.
  3. The issue to consider is not whether or not these 2 men “deserve” the death penalty.
  4. Why did the Federal Police, who are supposed to serve and protect ALL Australian citizens, exceed their lawful authority and place the lives of Australians in peril?
  5. By doing so, they violated the legal and international human rights obligations that the Commonwealth of Australia, owes to Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran.
  6. The crucial question for anyone who has ever been, or still is, a welfare recipient is simple; has any Australian federal government, past or present, ever violated your legal rights.


Legislated welfare penalties, commonly known as “Breaching”, violates both your constitutional rights and your human rights to a welfare benefit. In addition, the process known as Breaching also violates your legal rights.

 Do you recall my previous statement about a 2002High Court decision, i.e. “if there is no jurisdiction for a determination (or a decision), then there is “no decision at all”.

 The process known as “Breaching” is unconstitutional and therefore welfare penalties (Breaching) legislation is “statutory fiction”. If you have ever been breached, i.e. had your dole payment turned off, your legal rights have been violated. Sadly, the Australian Federal Parliament is a known serial violator of human rights:

  • The White Australia Policy;
  • The Stolen Generations Policies;
  • Attempting to preempt and undermine the High Court’s Poniatowska Decision.
  • Whatever the medical rational, the government’s decision to withhold family benefits payments from parents who do not vaccinate children is a no jurisdiction The parliament is constitutionally required to provide a welfare benefit . (Article 9 of the ICESCR also requires payment of a welfare benefit to the needy.)

 Many readers may know about the White Australia and Stolen Generations policies but many may not know about the Poniatowska and Keating decisions.

 Poniatowska ([2013] HCA 43.

When Malgorzata Poniatowska discovered that she had pleaded guilty to a crime that the Federal Parliament had accidently extinguished in March 2000, she appealed her conviction in the SA Supreme Court and it was overturned. With the validity of thousands of similar convictions of welfare recipients now in question, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) appealed that decision before the Full bench of the SA Supreme Court. Ms Poniatowska again won the case and so the DPP appealed to the High Court.

 In August 2011, realizing that Ms Poniatowska would probably win in the High Court, the Gillard Government, supported by the Opposition, passed retrospective legislation in the Parliament that was intended to validate thousands of convictions for a non-existent crime! One of the people affected by this retrospective legislation was Kelli Anne Keating.

 “statutory fiction”: DPP (Cth) v Keating [2013] HCA 20.

  1. Kelli Anne Keating was affected by the retrospective legislation and challenged its validity with the assistance of Victorian Legal Aid and a legal researcher, Dr Natalie Burgess DJ.
  2. On May 8th 2013 the High Court ruled that the retrospective legislation was “statutory fiction”, a decision that not only overturned Ms Keating’s conviction but some 15,000 of Centrelink’s “10 prosecutions a day” convictions of welfare recipients!
  3. Adding insult to injury for the Federal Parliament, on the same day the High Court handed down its decision in Beckett v NSW, (HCA 17), a decision that meant that people affected by the Keating decision did not have to wait for their own convictions to be overturned by a court before they could sue the Commonwealth for wrongful conviction or wrongful incarceration, et cetera!

Both breaching legislation, now called “Serious Compliance Failure Penalties”, and Work for the Dole legislation are unconstitutional and anyone who has ever been a victim of this legislation can sue the Commonwealth.

  1. Until recently, suing the Federal Government was an unrealistic no-go scenario for welfare recipients; however, in recent times there have been a number of class actions involving hundreds of thousands of people so it is now potentially a viable possibility.
  2.  Anyone considering a class action against the Commonwealth for violation of rights might like to consider emailing law firms like Maurice Blackburn. (Andrew Watson is a lawyer in the class action practice division of this law firm you could consider contacting.)
  3. NOTE: I do NOT recommend contacting Dun & Bradstreet as this law firm could have a serious Conflict of Interest problems because it was hired by Centrelink to coerce a welfare recipient, code named WR-X, when pursuing what was almost certainly a fraudulent tort claim. (See Part 1 of Australia’s irrelevant crime against humanity).
  4. When it comes to a “stupefying and overwhelming thing” that shocked and awed an impoverished welfare recipient, i.e. WR-X, into being coercively compelled, under extreme duress, to reluctantly agree to repay Centrelink’s fraudulent tort claim, even though the issue was being appealed, some of the lawyers at Dun & Bradstreet appear to have demonstrated a very high level of competency in performing this task!

 NOTE: If you do not know your constitutional rights, you should download your own copy of the Australian constitution and check out paragraph 51 (xxiii) (A).


Basic legal rights can easily be violated or compromised if people do not know these rights. The International Convention for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) not only safeguards the Right to Life; Article 14 also protects the legal rights of people:

  • Article 14recognizes and protects a right to justice and a fair trial. 
  • Article 14.1establishes the ground rules: everyone must be equal before the courts, and any hearing must take place in open court before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, with any judgment or ruling made public. 
  • Closed hearings are only permitted for reasons of privacy, justice, or national security.
  • These obligations apply to both criminal and civil hearings, and to all courts and tribunals.

 When it comes to alleged breaching violations, or Centrelink recovering over-payments, or Scott Morrison referring to overpaid welfare recipients are “rorters”, it is for the courts to decide who is responsible for alleged over-payments to welfare recipients, not politicians. These are examples of “tortious conduct” and under the old Magna Carta principles (1215 AD) and the ICCPR, jurisdiction belongs solely to the courts.

 In 1994 the High Court ruled in Coco v Queen (HCA 15) that “Statutory authority to engage in what otherwise would be tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and unambiguous language.”

  •  Centrelink’s infamous “Account payable” letters (See the previous posting) are anything but clearly expressed in unmistakable and unambiguous language.”
  • They are straight up fraud because it is up to a court to first decide, based upon an objective and impartial assessment of the facts, as to who was responsible for the error and whether or not the “good faith” waiver of debt provisions in paragraph 1,237A, sub-paragraph 3, may or may not apply if the welfare recipient was in any way responsible, either partly or solely, for any mistake that had occurred.
  • Centrelink employees have no jurisdiction to make legal decisions and until a court determines legal liability Centrelink’s “Account payable” letters of demand are not legally valid.
  • When sent to people with Depression, they are also very dangerous, a fact dismissed as “irrelevant” by a least one Crown Law lawyer!

 In addition to being unconstitutional and a violation of human rights, legislated breaching penalties are also inherently dangerous for they deliberately expose vulnerable lives to lethal peril. Using information contained in federal government documents and research reports, the following definition applies to the 346,078 breaches that were arbitrarily imposed by the Howard Government in FY 2000-01. (1 July 2000 – 30 June 2001.)

It is the wilful exposure of life to peril that constitutes the crime.”

 “Breaching was the targeted, deliberate removal of the only means of subsistence from financially impoverished, functionally illiterate people, many of whom were emotionally fragile and potentially suicidal, so that for a period of 3 months, they were unable to meet even the most basic of their costs of living.” (Note: Breaching was/is wilful exposure to peril.)


In 1835, the British Parliament set up a Royal Commission to review Crown statute laws. In a series of reports tabled over almost 10 years, the Commission made some conclusions that are relevant to any fatalities caused by the Howard Government’s enforcement of the illegal breaching quotas that resulted in the 346,078 breaching penalties:

A Conclusion: The ‘heart bent on mischief’ must in this case, and it is apprehended in all others, in the absence of a special definite rule of law which defines what is meant by implied malice, consist simply in the disregard of life manifested by exposing life to peril, although no malice in the popular sense of the term exist against any individual. [1]

  •  TRANSLATION: “although no malice in the popular sense of the term exist against any individual” was a legal principle that applied in the prosecution of Peter Cowan for the murder of Daniel Morecombe.
  • You do not have to intend to kill someone to be found guilty of murder, a legal principle that applies to all of the as yet uncounted and unreported to Parliament, “irrelevant” breaching and fraudulent tort triggered fatalities.

 The Royal Commissioners were also of the opinion that It is the wilful exposure of life to peril that constitutes the crime.”

  • Since then, this logic has influenced literally thousands of homicide cases throughout the British Commonwealth of Nations, as well as in nations that use laws based upon British Crown law principles, e.g. the United States of America.
  • Potentially, this legal opinion could also have implications in regard to the tens of thousands of ‘collateral’ civilian deaths caused by the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003.

 In FY 2000-01, ‘Breaching’ was the wilful exposure of impoverished people to total destitution, a perilous action that deprived people of the ability, for a period of 3-months, to subsist and therefore, to survive. Such a recklessly dangerous act on such a massive scale involved the total disregard for life by exposing life to peril, not once, but a staggering 346,078 times in a single year! In the 3-year period 2000-2002, some 750,000 people were placed in peril as a direct consequence of the Howard Government’s actions.

  • In the 10-year period, 1997 to 2006, there were 20,914 suicides and, perhaps not unsurprisingly, about 1 in 3 of these suicides was an unemployed person!
  • Just like the 4 ‘Roofgate” fatalities, these deaths were unreported by Centrelink bureaucrats to parliament.
  • Currently, they are secretly classified as ‘confidential’ by the Australian Senate’s Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee. (2005) These fatalities have also twice been dismissed as “irrelevant” by the Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee in 2006 and were also recently dismissed as “irrelevant” by a Crown Law lawyer representing the Secretary for the DSS in an appeal before the AAT.
  • Since the Tribunal ignored these fatalities and failed to act to compel the Secretary to disclose any details of these fatalities, by an ‘act of omission’ the AAT has effectively endorsed the Crown Law viewpoint that these deaths are “irrelevant”.
  • There was ‘implied malice’ in the reckless disregard for life in the circumstances that led to the death of ‘Sarah’, i.e. to what extent did the tort action by Centrelink to recover alleged overpayments of $18,000 contribute to Sarah’s death by undermining her ability to cope with her manifestly obvious life-threatening health problems?
  • There was a clearly foreseeable risk of placing Sarah’s life in peril by exposing her to a very traumatic tort that may well have been of comparable dubious merit to Ashby v Commonwealth (No 4) [2012] (1411), a case which Justice Rares described as being of such dubious merit as to bring international disrepute upon Australia’s justice system if he were to endorse Mr Ashby’s tort claim.

 ‘QUOTAGATE’: Long before ‘Rudd’s Roofgate’, there was John Howard’s ‘Quotagate’.

Tony AbbottIn a press conference on 12th February 2010, Tony Abbott blamed Peter Garrett for the deaths of 4 insulation installers. He reportedly told the mass media that if Mr Garrett were a company director in NSW ”…he would be charged with industrial manslaughter”. Mr Abbott then stated that the Government had a hide to attack Barnaby Joyce for his economic gaffes when people were dying in ceiling cavities. That is grossly hypocritical given that Tony Abbott may be concealing something in the vicinity of 2,600+ unreported, secretly classified Performance Indicator Target triggered post-breaching fatalities, a John Howard rip-off that I call ‘Quotagate’.

  1.  Violations of the Right to Life obligation are Crimes against Humanity under Article 7 (1) (k) of the Rome Statute of the International Court.
  2. The refusal of law enforcement agencies, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and state and territory coroners courts to acknowledge these deaths may have unintentionally opened the way for a United Nations Human Rights Commission investigation into the mounting death toll caused by Australia’s lethal welfare penalties system.


The answer to that question is that for the last 3 or 4 decades, the constitutional rights, legal rights and fundamental human rights of our nation’s most vulnerable people have been violated literally millions of times without any thought for the consequences other than the budgetary ‘$avings’ achieved. (Yes, I am accusing the Australian Federal Parliament of committing crimes against humanity for financial gain.) Amongst the people financially harmed or killed by the ruthlessly insensitive actions of Australia’s ideology driven federal politicians and sycophant public servants and lawyers are:

  • The families or descendants of the original ANZACs who fought in World War 1; i.e. children, grand-children and great-grand-children;
  • The families or descendants of the original ANZACs who fought in World War 2; i.e. children, grand-children and great-grand-children;
  • The families or descendants of the service men and women who served in Korea, Vietnam, and more recently, Afghanistan and Iraq;
  • Refugees and immigrants who came to Australia seeking safety and security from oppression and terror;
  • Ordinary Aussie battlers like Sarah who have been doing it tough because they have fallen on hard times due to circumstances beyond their control, or because they have been denied a fair go by those who are too self-satisfied or too complacent to care about their plight.

NOTE: The combined (classified) death toll caused by the ‘no jurisdiction’ welfare penalties and Centrelink’s fraudulent “Account payable” swindle may probably be somewhere between 15,000 and 30,000.

Until such time as there is a Royal Commission of Inquiry, a coroner’s inquest, or a United Nations HRC investigation into the impact of Australia’s legislated welfare penalties (Breachgate), the Howard Government’s illegal “Performance Indicator Targets”, (Quotagate), and the failure of Centrelink and the ARO/SSAT/AAT appeal system to uphold the waiver of debt law and the Procedural Fairness rights of welfare recipients, (Waivergate), on the balance of probability, the death toll will still continue to increase.

According to the Human Services Minister, Scott Morrison, “Now there are about 10 million welfare recipients, with $400 million spent on 50 million transactions every day.” Right now, whether it is 7.3 million or 10 million people who receive a welfare payment, all are at risk of becoming a victim of a “Commonwealth error”, i.e. a mistake either by under-trained and/or over-worked Centrelink staff, or as the result errors by Centrelink’s aging, dysfunctional “Walkman era”, “turbo-charged Commodore 64… with spoilers”, 1980’s era computer system; a system that cannot deliver “ethical” reliability!

7.3 million people represents almost 1 person in 3 in Australia. If you or a member of your family receives a welfare payment from Centrelink, then there is a high degree of probability (1 in 3), that you or a family member could one day become another victim of the Federal Government’s violation of rights and could be placed in life-threatening peril. The key question then is; will you or yours be able to survive this violation of rights?

In 1994 the Victorian Supreme Court was faced with an appeal that involved a death caused by a ‘game’ of Russian Roulette, R v Faure [1999] VSCA 166 (24 September 1999). The Appellate Court left no stone unturned in looking at legal precedents for such incidents. When handing down the Court’s decision Justice Brooking stated:

“As long ago as 1839 it was accepted by the distinguished English Royal Commissioners inquiring into the criminal law that it would be murder if, knowing that one only of two (or three or four) pistols set before him was loaded, but not knowing which one, the accused, for the pleasure of it, picked up one pistol, put it to another person’s head and pulled the trigger with fatal results.”


  1. Legislated welfare penalties, whether they are referred to as ‘Breaching’, or as a ‘Serious Compliance Failure Penalty’, involves “playing” Russian Roulette with the lives of very vulnerable, fragile people. The statistical odds for the survival rates of the 3 -4 million welfare penalties imposed can be accurately calculated using the same mathematical modelling principles used in Faure. However, at the end of the day, the “scorecard” survival rate for any one individual is 50-50, i.e. either they survive or they do not!
  2. Not only were/are these risks known, the lethal consequences of these fatalities were/are callously dismissed as “irrelevant” by those responsible for these deaths.
  3. My personal view, which I believe that any court in Australia, and the International Criminal Court of Justice would endorse is the statement that there is no such thing as an “irrelevant” homicide.
  4. Since 1st July 2002, regardless of the actual cause of death, because welfare penalties are “a stupefying and overwhelming thing” that is intended to place people vulnerable people in peril by removing what may be their sole means of subsistence, breaching fatalities are Crimes against Humanity.
  5. Every Australian politician, bureaucrat, police officer, lawyers or judge involved causing or concealing these deaths should be held fully accountable in accordance with Due Process of Law.
  6. The use of unjust, human rights violating laws, policies and practices to justify fraud and murder in the name of ideologically driven economic rationalistic beliefs is simply not acceptable in any democratic country, especially our country, Australia.
  7. Excuses such as “I was only doing my job”, or “I was only following orders” were not acceptable excuses at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. Similarly, when it comes to breaching triggered fatalities, the excuse “I was only upholding the law” is equally unacceptable.
  8. In July 2009, Francis Neale, co-chair of the International Bar Association’s Rule of Law Action Group wrote, “All countries, even those governed by the crudest dictatorship, need or have laws, although the disregard the individual or collective rights of all or parts of the population. Indeed, apartheid was enforced with meticulous attention to form and detail.”

 For over a 100 years Australians have fought and died for this country, not only to oppose and defeat the forces of tyranny and injustice, but also to ensure that Australia would be a safe place to live; a place where struggling battlers doing it tough would receive “a fair go”. On ANZAC Day, when you remember the courage and sacrifice of these brave men and women, spare a moment to remember their most enduring legacy because paragraph 51(xxiii) (A) of the constitution was paid for by the sacrifice of over 100,000 lives.

  • On 1st January 2013, Julia Gillard and Bill Shorten did not honour the ANZAC Legacy when they reduced subsistence level payments to single parents. Why? Because some of those people who were pushed even deeper into the poverty trap by that parsimonious parliamentary penny-pinching are the children or the grandchildren of the men and women who have fought and died so that their children would live in a better world than they had lived in.
  • “I am all in favour of rights. I am also in favour of the rights of taxpayers not to have their money abused”. This irate response by Tony Abbott to the Senate Human Rights Committee’s rejection of legislation that would have deprived young Australians of an unemployment benefit for 6-month was also appallingly wrong.
  • The federal budget cost of these welfare payments to the federal budget does not represent an ‘abuse’ of taxpayers funds. Each time he was elected to Australia’s Federal Parliament and when he was sworn in as the Prime Minister, he made a sworn oath to uphold a constitution that was bought and paid for not with money, but with the blood and sacrifice of our nation’s real
  • On ANZAC Day, you may see one of the not-so-honourable members of our Federal Parliament who may have done their very best to destroy the ANZAC Legacy with murderous, unconstitutional human rights violating legislation.
  • Once the remembrance service is over, don’t be backward or shy in quietly, politely but very assertively, sharing your thoughts and opinions about the unconscionable conduct of Federal Parliament in trying to destroy the ANZAC legacy.
  • Please, is such an opportunity arises, avoid all forms of violence as that would dishonour those whom we Honour.

Who knows? Perhaps by holding politicians accountable now for the death and despair that they have so willingly inflicted upon our nation’s most vulnerable people for decades, people like Sarah, you may ultimately be saving your own life?


“As a principle, the rule of law is essential. However, it is only so as it safeguards and promotes the higher principle of justice. Justice for all. Harmony in society and its laws through justice. Not simply justice for the majority, as expressed in democratic elections. Justice also for minorities. Justice, especially for vulnerable and unpopular minorities. It is when minorities demand the protection of the law that our discipline, the law is tested.” [2] (Michael Kirby – a former High Court judge.)

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for fair justice in Australia.

[1] Commissioners’ 7th Report (1843) 19 Parliamentary Papers, p.24:

[2] The Hon. Michael Kirby AC CMG. “The rule of law beyond the law of rules.” Address to the 15th Malaysian Bar Association Conference, Kuala Lumpa, 29 July 2010.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 2: Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity: If you receive a letter of demand from Centrelink, DO NOT LODGE AN APPEAL because you can loose more easily than you can win!.

If you receive an “Account payable” from Centrelink, or a phone call asking you to come to the local Centrelink office to “discuss” alleged over-payments:

17-01-13 Centrelink Letter ofDemandIf you ever receive a letter like this, you are being conned. The bad news is that the Federal Police know it is a government con but will not touch it with a 10-foot pole! Letters like this violate your legal rights and you need to realize that it is a way that Centrelink uses to recover the hundreds of millions of dollars in stuff-ups that occur each year. (See the URL link below in (c) for more details of this stuff-up.)

NOTE: The short link for this URL is:

1. – DO NOT lodge an appeal to an Authorized Review Officer. (ARO) They are NOT “independent” as they claim:- They are Centrelink employees who, like the police, can use anything that you say against you in a court or tribunal hearing, e.g. during any SSAT appeals that you may lodge!)

(a) If you do not appeal, then Centrelink has to PROVE that you were in the wrong in a (local) court and that is very expensive for Centrelink. So much so, that it actually may be cheaper for Centrelink to comply with the Waiver of Debt law in paragraph 1,237a of the Social Security Act and waive the debt because it was their mistake!

(b) NOTE: if you appeal, it is a good as saying you were in the wrong and then you have to prove that you were not in the wrong! Dial 13 32 76 and listen for the “This call will be recorded for your security” statement. That call will not be made available to you if Centrelink is in the wrong and you will then get stuck with a bill that should have been waived by Centrelink!

(c) Check this out:

(d) Centrelink is over-paying tens or hundreds of millions of dollars every year and, despite the waiver of debt law, they try to get every single cent back.



2. – POLITELY inform Centrelink that you intend to seek LEGAL advice from a lawyer or welfare rights advocate before discussing the issue with Centrelink.  This is your legal right and if Centrelink try to continue asking questions, DO NOT ANSWER ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS – JUST SAY “I HAVE NO COMMENT AT THIS TIME” then hang up the phone before you say something that can be used against you in an appeals tribunal hearing.

Believe it or not, any ‘threat’ to take you to court is actually very good news for you. Why?

Because it is so expensive to do that that it is often a non-option for Centrelink, i.e. the threat is often just a bluff, and in court Centrelink has to prove that you were at fault – you can simply insist that the court listen to the 13 32 76 recording of the phone call in dispute. If they accuse you of fraud, then you are entitled to LEGAL AID and you can point out to Centrelink that your lawyer will want the phone calls PLUS the details of the number of times torts have resulted in fatal outcomes. (See my next posting which should be up within a week.)

If Centrelink do not have the phone call recording of your alleged “mistake” that caused the over-payments, then they have no case.

If Centrelink does have the recording  and it is bad news for you because you made a mistake, you can then point out to the court that it is “poisoned fruit” and is inadmissible as evidence because it violates the Coco v R [1994] HCA 15 BINDING legal precedent. (Coco v the Crown – High Court case 15 in 1994)

This precedent requires that:

Statutory authority to engage in what otherwise would be tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and unambiguous language.”

Translation: Centrelink has lied to you about the real use of the phone call because they did not record it for your benefit but for theirs. Therefore you could not give informed consent for the conversation to be recorded and it is thus inadmissible by Centrelink in their court case against you.

No phone call recording means no “factual certainty”, i.e. no hard evidence of who was in the wrong and responsible for the over-payment. The above URL link can be used by you to prove that Centrelink was most likely responsible for the error and under the Waiver of Debt law you do not have to pay.

VITAL: You do not have to answer questions so do not ‘take the stand’, i.e. allow yourself to be sworn in.

“Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat”

A core principle in our system of criminal justice than the presumption of innocence that is accorded to the defendant in every criminal trial’.

“Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” is one of the fundamental rights found in the International Convention for Civil and Political Rights. ‘No principle is more firmly established in our system of criminal justice than the presumption of innocence of wrong-doing that is right of any defendant in any trial’. Because “The Right to a Fair Trial” includes this presumption that you are innocent, anyone accusing you of doing something must prove it.



      – ASK THEM!

In my next posting I will provide shocking evidence of what happens when you get sucked into Centrelink’s deadly game of “Appeal”. You really can wind up dead once Centrelink “stupefies and overwhelms you with a truckload of legal crap!

 Remember, until you know your legal rights as well as Centrelink does, you are fair game – just don’t wind up as ‘dead meat’.

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for justice in Australia.


everyone shall be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Part One: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity.

“Irrelevant”.  Once more that ugly way of describing Australia’s secretly classified welfare penalties death toll has surfaced in official correspondence.

I have not made a posting on this website during the last six months because I have been assisting someone rebut a fraudulent claim by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. Dial 13 32 76 and you will hear the following recorded statements:

“Good morning. Welcome to the Department of Human Services. This is Centrelink’s reporting line. For your security, this call will be recorded. Please tell me your customer access number, if you have one. You may know this as your Customer Reference Number.”

[Note: The short link to this URL is:   ]

Having overpaid a welfare recipient, Centrelink automatically blamed that welfare recipient, hereafter referred to as “WR-X”, as in Welfare Recipient X, for these (alleged)  over-payments. The only hard evidence as to who was responsible for the mistake that resulted in the alleged over-payments to WR-X  was in the recording of the phone call recorded by Centrelink.

It is not known if Centrelink bureaucrats listened to this recording before blaming WR-X; what is known is that after 15 months, an ARO review, an SSAT Hearing, and an AAT trial, Centrelink, and the Department of Human Services still will not make the recording available! 

Since the recording was the only evidence as to who said what to whom, on behalf of WR-X, I requested that the recording be made available. However, the Crown Law lawyer acting on behalf of the Secretary for the Department of Social Services, i.e. the person with bureaucratic responsibility for Centrelink’s operations,  could not, or would not, make this crucial recording available.

So much for “ For your security, this call will be recorded.”

Via email, I then put a series of questions to this lawyer asking how many times the Secretary had engaged in “Tortuous Conduct“, i.e. legal action to recover any over-payments that may have been made to welfare recipients, and how many times had this resulted in fatalities, the answer that I received was that my questions were “irrelevant”.

So lets have a close look at these “irrelevant” fatalities from a statute law perspective and then from a human rights perspective.

1.    Withholding evidence for financial advantage.

Withholding evidence during a federal trial is a major crime that violates a heap of laws, especially Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995). This law deals with ‘Acts of Omission or acts of commission by a legal entity for the purpose of obtaining a financial advantage that is not entitled to be received.’

  1. It is worth noting that this law is often used to prosecute welfare recipients for allegedly ripping off Centrelink.
  2. It is also worthy of note that paragraph 5 of the constitution clearly states that the law is binding on the people, i.e. the Secretary is as accountable for violating this law as even the most impoverished welfare recipient.


Section 294 (4) of the Western Australian Crimes Act deals with “stupefying and overwhelming things’ that can cause a death. Such fatalities are felony murders in that5 that state and in all states except, the Northern territory, the ACT, and perhaps not surprisingly the Commonwealth’s previous mentioned Criminal Code Act.

  1. Crimes that so “stupefy and overwhelm” people are homicidal violations of these laws:
  2. Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 18 (1)(a);
  3. Criminal Code (Qld) s 302 (1) (b)–(d);
  4. Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA)
  5. s 12A; Criminal Code (Tas) s 157 (1) (c);
  6. Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); s 3A


The downside of repeatedly dismissing these fatalities is that they may now qualify for ‘up-grading’ to Wilful Murder, a point highlighted in numerous appeals by people who sought to have Wilful Murder charges downgraded to a lesser crime so that they would one day be eligible for parole.

The Boughey High Court Appeal:

  • The High Court considered the meaning of the phrase ‘likely to cause death’ in s 157(1) of the Tasmanian Criminal Code. Section 157(1) (b) provides that culpable homicide is murder if it is committed with an intention to cause ‘bodily harm which the offender knew to be likely to cause death in the circumstances, although he had no wish to cause death’.
  • The majority of the High Court held that the phrase ‘likely to cause death’ does not mean ‘more likely than not’ and the phrase should not be explained in terms of a particular ‘degree of mathematical probability’. Instead, the phrase should be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning: ‘a substantial or real chance as distinct from what is a mere possibility’.

It should be noted that legislated welfare penalties, e.g. Breaching and Serious Compliance Failure Penalties are about deliberately depriving very vulnerable at-risk people, many with serious mental health problems, of the ability to survive. in the 10=year period 1997-2006, some 20,914 people committed suicide and a staggering 1 in 3 were unemployed people.

  1. How many of the these suicides were a direct response to the “stupefying and overwhelming” effect of having their only means of subsistence cut-off is currently unknown.
  2. However, by deliberately ignoring the fatal consequences, i.e. not reporting these fatalities but instead secretly classifying them as “confidential” and “irrelevant”, Australia’s federal politicians may have unwittingly exposed themselves to serious criminal charges under Australian laws.
  3. WHY? Because legislated welfare penalties (by any name) created  “‘a substantial or real chance as distinct from what is a mere possibility that this “stupefying and overwhelming” penalty system was likely to cause death’’.
  4. By secretly classifying these fatalities as “confidential” and dismissing them as “irrelevant”, the clear MINDSET of federal politician and bureaucrats responsible for these deaths is easily determined, i.e. as far as they were/are concerned, these homicides are an acceptable consequence.
  5. That mindset makes these homicides Wilful Murders rather than ‘just’ Manslaughter due to Criminal Negligence, or Felony Murders.


Australia is a signatory to 7 international conventions that impose legally enforceable obligations upon the federal government of the day, i.e. the Abbott Government. The enforcement comes from Section 7 (1) (k) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court convention, i.e.

” Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”

The International Convention for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides the following rights:

  • Article 1 – the negative right not to be deprived of the only means of subsistence;
  • Article 6 – no forced labour, i.e. no Work for the Dole in order to receive a welfare subsistence allowance. (Work for the Dole is also prohibited under Section 51 (xxiii) (a) of the Australian Constitution.)
  • Article 9 – The right to social security. (This right to social security is also prescribed under Section 51 (xxiii) (a) of the Australian Constitution, i.e. the Federal Parliament has a constitutional obligation to provide a welfare allowance to people who need this payment in order to subsist.)

For decades the Australian federal parliament has been a serial violator of these rights. Check out these links for further details of the willingness of politicians to violate the human rights of vulnerable Australian citizens:

Over the last 30 years, I estimate that serial suicides that have been triggered by the “stupefying and overwhelming” consequence of cutting the only means of subsistence to impoverished, emotional distressed welfare recipients, may have resulted in some 15,000 suicides.

  • To this number of deaths can be added the tally of “Deaths by Misadventure” that happened to people who were forced out of safe accommodation onto the streets.
  • In addition, there are also the so-called “Natural Causes” fatalities. Let’s face it, if you deprive a person with acute asthma of the financial resources needed to by asthma puffers and they have a massive asthma attack and die, is that really natural causes or is yet another examples of a fatal “stupefying and overwhelming thing”?

Australian politicians have not yet learned that the Social Media is the real mass media. Why? Because, when news breaks, like the mass media, you’ll hear it break first in the social media.

Eventually a welfare recipient, perhaps WR-X, is going to get these deaths before a court and then the fat will be in the fire.WR-X does have a shot at arguing her case in the Federal Court but that could be a year or more from now and a lot of vulnerable people could die in that time!

If you have a Twitter or Facebook account, or if you know how to send an SMS, you can help to prevent further Breachgate and Waivergate frauds and fatalities by proving that Australia’s Crimes againstHhumanity are not “irrelevant”.


By letting as many of your friends as possible know about these fatalities.

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian (lay) advocate for justice in Australia.

P.S. – If you get a phone cal or a letter of demand from Centrelink, remember these two crucial points:

  1. You have the right to remain silent, and;
  2. The onus is on Centrelink to prove their claim. You can torpedo it by demanding that ALL recordings of your phone conversations be made available to you so that you can discuss them with a legal aid lawyer or a welfare rights advocate.

BE WARNED: Answer no questions as  saying “Yes” to the seemingly innocent question “Did you receive the letters that we sent you” will be deemed by a Centrelink ARO, the SSAT and the AAT to be an “error” on your part and thus you get stuck with repaying money that was over-paid due to “Commonwealth error”, i.e. an error by Centrelink!

Hence the need to say nothing other than “I know my rights. I don’t have to say anythingother than give me copies of the phone calls.


Posted in News and politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Rinehart Syndrome: Beyond Quotagate and Breach-gate. The bureaucratic assult and ‘rape’ of a unversity student by the SSAT.

‘Jay’ is an alias for a university student who was emotionally abused and traumatized by the Social Security Administrative Appeals Tribunal system. If you are reading this posting ‘Jay’, I have some ideas for you to consider, so please read on.

BACKGROUND STUFF: On Tuesday 2nd September 2014, shortly before lunch time (in Adelaide), I received an interstate phone call from ‘Jay‘ who briefed me on the appallingly bad treatment that had been meted out by an Administrative Appeals Tribune. In addition to the ancient old ploy of ignoring medical reports from doctors by the simple process of either losing the reports, or not having processed them in time for a review hearing, ‘Jay’ had been subjected to both verbal and written abuse.

Nasty! Very nasty indeed, but not unsurprising at all.

It is important to keep in mind the statement by Centrelink’s Assistant Secretary Neil Skill, that “Centrelink does not collect post breaching terminal outcomes statistics and therefore cannot make them available…” That is a bureaucratic way of saying that Centrelink’s management simply don’t care if you drop dead! If or when you do, they don’t bother to count the either your body or any of the other bodies of those who died as a result of their Rinehart Syndrome insensitivity.

TECH TIP:- to print your own copy of any documents that I embed in my postings, just double click on a document, e.g. the letter below. It should pop up in a new window and you can then use your web browser’s PRINT command to print out a copy.

In just one simple statement, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill explains how post-breaching fatalities have been kept from the public for decades, i.e. they did not bother to "collect" this data.

In just one simple statement, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill explains how post-breaching fatalities have been kept from the public for decades, i.e. they did not bother to “collect” this data.

  1. At the turn of the century when the Howard Government was defrauding welfare recipients at the rate of 3 per minute through the illegal enforcement of ‘Performance Indicator targets’, i.e. breaching quotas, AROs (Administrative Review Officers) and Administrative Appeals tribunal staff tried to stem this fraud “administratively.”
  2. This means that they rejected many of the absolutely ludicrous, crazy excuses being used by Centrelink staff to as they tried desperately to meet the Howard Governments breaching quotas.
  3. In some states, a staggering 86% of appeals were being upheld, which meant that the Howard Government was unable to maximize the financial returns from the breaching quotas rip-off.
  4. Although it was quite obvious that welfare recipients were being defrauded, the AROs and appeals tribunal staff NEVER reported this activity to the cops, i.e. they did not blow the whistle.
  5. This failure to take action when action was required meant far more than either Nonfeasance or the loss of both systemic and personal integrity.
  6. Under Section 18 of the New South Wales Crimes Act (1900) and the South  Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935), any fatalities caused by this fraud may be FELONY MURDERS.
  7. BECAUSE THESE DEATHS ARE (STILL) UNREPORTED, SECRETLY CLASSIFIED AS  (both) “CONFIDENTIAL” and “IRRELEVANT”, the number is unknown. However, suicide data indicates that from this cause alone, there may have been 2,631 fatalities that TONY ABBOTT, Jocelyn Newman and Amanda Vanstone failed to report to Parliament in the period 1st January 2000 to 31st December 2002.


‘Jay’ was abused verbally AND ALSO IN WRITING, and that latter is very significant from a legal perspective.

  1. No-one was with ‘Jay‘ at the tribunal hearing and that is always a mistake for there is no witness if any verbal abuse should occur – ALWAYS go with someone who can testify on your behalf if the tribunal gets abusive. (Which is far less likely if some-else is present with a pen and notebook taking notes, et cetera.)
  2. Abuse in writing is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF:
  • Abuse of Lawful Authority;
  • Procedural Unfairness;
  • Manifest Ostensible Bias.

Abuse in writing is legal grounds for claiming A Gross Miss-carriage of Justice which in turn opens the legal door to requesting a full review of the entire process. The Manifest Ostensible Bias mentioned above is backed up by a Queensland Supreme Court case that had profound implications.

The case of Queensland’s Dr Death.

After it was revealed that more than 60 of Dr Jayant Patel’s patients had died, the Morris Commission was set up to investigate WHY so many people had died. (The official name of the inquiry was The Bundaberg Hospital Commission of Inquiry. The person heading the Inquiry, Mr Tony Morris QC, was compassionate with families of those who died, and with those who suffered alleged injury as a result of Dr Patel’s surgical work. However this was not the case with Bundaberg Hospital administrators Darren Keating and Peter Leck. They undertook a court case against Morris.

  • The Morris Inquiry was wound up after Supreme Court Justice Martin Moynihan, on 1st September 2005, found that Mr Morris had been biased against Keating and Leck.
  • The Davies Commission subsequently found gross negligence in Patel’s conduct, as well as systematic failures of management to deal with the problem. Davies recommended that Patel be referred to the public prosecutor for consideration of manslaughter, fraud, and assault charges. In total seventeen patient deaths were referred to police. An extradition process was begun after the police issued a warrant for Patel, acting on 14 offenses.
  • The report also found that amongst Queensland Health bureaucrats concerns regarding “significant and sustained statewide adverse publicity” were rated as significant as “loss of life”.
  • The state chief health officer at the time, Dr Gerry FitzGerald was criticized for his own investigation into Patel, describing it as too positive.


The interim report of the Morris Inquiry was turned into “poisoned fruit” that could not be used. This would later prove most advantageous for Dr Patel, who in 2013,  was acquitted of Manslaughter charges after the High Court ordered a re-trial.

Any abuse, verbal or written, by a public servant involved in the welfare review process, is evidence of bias and that is grounds for scrapping the entire review as happened with the Morris Inquiry (at a cost of about $5 MILLION to Queensland taxpayers.

  • A few months ago, here in my home state of South Australia, the Supreme Court ordered the re-trial of two members of a motor cycle club who had allegedly shot another person. The judge ordered the re-trial on the grounds of “Procedural Irregularities.”
  • Believe me when I say that even minor “Procedural Irregularities” are grounds for having unfavourable administrative appeal decisions scrapped.
  • Rude behaviour, abusive language, stonewalling, missing or ‘unprocessed’ documents are all legal grounds for claiming “Procedural Irregularities” and welfare recipients have the legal right to demand a new hearing with a new, IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL that will respect your legal rights.
  • If you believe that you are the victim of abusive behaviour, then you can use the Leck vs. Morris; Keating vs. Morris decision to DEMAND that the ARO or Tribune, RECUSE themselves from the processing and handling of your appeal.
  • If they refuse, then your legal rights have been violated and you may have grounds for appeal to a higher court.
  • If documents that you supplied are missing from the hearing, file a “Procedural Irregularities” complaint and demand a new hearing at a time that is convenient to you.
  • If they refuse, then your legal rights have been violated and you may have grounds for appeal to a higher court.


When you phone Centrelink, you get a canned voice telling you that the phone call may be recorded for “training and feedback” purposes. Well sometimes, that “feedback” is when it is tendered as evidence in a court by Crown prosecutors!

  1. Just as Centrelink can record your conversation, you can turn the tables and inform Centrelink that since they are recording the phone call, so are you.
  2. Be very sweet and polite, but be firm. Expect the “you can’t do that” response but explain that if one party to a phone conversation has permission to record the phone call, it is “implied permission” for both parties to record the call.
  3. If Centrelink stops recording the call, then you will also stop recording the call.
  4. You can also record your side of the conversation if you are not using a speaker-phone. This way, you at least have a record of what you said to Centrelink during the call.
  5. REMEMBER: BE POLITE, BUT BE ASSERTIVE AT ALL TIMES.  Never be rude as you compromise your legal rights and that is most unwise.
  6. What you are doing when you do this is changing the rules of the game by introducing other statute law rules that constraint Centrelink by forcing a more even-handed and fair approach to the dispute resolution process.


At a tribunal or ARO hearing, if the person you are dealing with gets abusive or is bureaucratically inflexible, YOU can change the rules of the ‘game‘.

As the following extract from Centrelink’s FY 2001-02 Annual Report makes quite clear with the “BALANCED SCORECARD” comment,  the treatment of welfare recipients is LITERALLY perceived by Centrelink’s top management as a game! (Oops! How did that revealingly indiscreet  comment get into this official report to the parliament? Why did 226 federal politicians ignore it?)

Save Money. not lives was apparently Centrelink's motto.

Centrelink annual reports are incredibly detailed but in every report ever published by the DSS and Centrelink the most critical information, i.e. the impact of breaching upon impoverished welfare recipients, was always absent. From Centrelink’s perspective, saving money was far more important than saving lives. In effect, each of these reports is A LIE, because the most crucial information of all, the human impact of Centrelink’s breaching activity was deliberately omitted so that the public could make an informed judgement about the merits of breaching activity.


The administrative appeals tribunals are QUASI-LEGAL systems that are NOT recognized in the Australian Constitution. Their authority is ‘derived’ from the AUTHORITY of the Governor-General, not the constitution and as such, one use of these tribunals is not to uphold your legal rights but to instead deprive you of your legal rights. keep in mind that the High Court’s May 8th 2013 “statutory fiction” decision, DPP (Cwlth) vs. Keating [HCA 20 -2013], was all about tossing out unconstitutional, human rights violating retrospective legislation that the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, had signed in law in 2011.

T.E.A.M. – Together Everyone Achieves More; a balance of power issue.

Here is one simple way to change the rules of the game and it really is a case of Together Everyone Achieves More. If you can arrive at a hearing with a group of friends who are there in an “AMICUS CURIAE” capacity,i,e, friends of the court, the dynamics of the hearing can be dramatically altered with the “balance of power” moving away from Centrelink towards you.

  1. If you have a friend with a mobile phone, ask them to record what you say.
  2. Ask the ARO or tribune if you can record what they say to you. The most likely response is a “NO” that you must respect.
  3. HOWEVER, when speaking and being recorded by your friend, repeat what was said to you so that it recorded  “second-hand”. For example, you could say, “You asked if I have filled in and filed all of the required forms? Yes, I have.”
  4. NEVER answer a question until you understand what you were asked and also be careful to NEVER over-answer the question, e.g. “Yes, I have” is sufficient to truthfully answer the above “filled and filed” question.

HEARING IMPAIRED (or have a hearing impaired friend.)

Hearing impaired people are legally allowed to use ‘Speech to Text’ aids that translate speech into text on a screen. Hearing impaired, my ANDROID mobile phone has a FREE utility that I downloaded from the Android Play Store. It is  called ‘Speech to Text Notepad‘.

  1. This utility translated speech to text and saves the text in a file that can later be printed out.
  2. If you are hearing impaired, or have a friend who is hearing impaired, this utility can legally be used as an hearing impairment aid in helping a person to correctly comprehend and understand the conversation whilst, conveniently for you,  a text file TRANSCRIPT of the conversation is made.
  3. It is odds on that a transcript is being made by the tribunal and this is in itself grounds for you making your own copy.
  4. If the ARO or Tribune objects, the door is wide open to claiming “Procedural  Unfairness”, “Bias” AND, “Disability Discrimination”, which is a matter for the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, and you can immediately request a new review hearing with a more impartial ARO or Tribune.

At the end of the day, people can only jerk you around and violate your legal rights if you let them do so. As the “Teacher warned” newspaper below makes quite clear, I am speaking from years of personal experience. In this particular instance, although I was warned, it was the Regional Director who was replaced once the issue hit the newspapers.

Teacher warnedI also have my very own personal “CONFIDENTIAL” classification issued by the Senate’s legal & Confidential Affairs Committee in November 2005. Since the Senate was trying to hide some where in the region of about 6,000 post breaching fatalities that had occurred since the Howard Government had come to power in March 1996, citing me for “contempt of Parliament” and jailing is not a wise option for the Federal Parliament, especially now that the full scale of this massive lethal humanitarian disaster is starting to become clearer.

A Check on submissions to the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry will show that submission 287 is officially "Not yet available". As this letter reveals, it is secretly classified as confidential.

A Check on submissions to the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry will show that submission 287 is officially “Not yet available”. As this letter reveals, it is secretly classified as confidential.

My personal view on this secret confidential classification, which I expressed in writing to the Hanger Royal Commission, is that the above secret gag is a criminal abuse of lawful authority by the Leg-Con Committee for the express purpose of obstructing and perverting the course of justice.

“Soldiers Who Want To Be Heroes number practically zero. But there are millions who want to be civilians”

Those words are from the Rod McKuen anti-war song “Soldiers who want to heroes” (1971?) and they  accurately describe me. ‘Jay‘ thought that I was ‘brave’ by doing what I am doing in these postings but nothing could be further from the truth.

  • Like ‘Jay’, suffered the emotional and physiological trauma of being dumped on and in 1993, after discovering that the safety tests mentioned in last paragraph of the the “teacher warned” news article had been rigged, I resigned and moved out of teaching for 10 years.
  • See for more details.
  • In 2004, after receiving a very frightening death threat, I dropped the Quotagate murders issue for over a year!

So, if you want a hero, please look elsewhere.

If you have read previous postings, then you know that I sign off with the statement “A Christian advocate for justice.” That statement is the key to understanding what motivates and sustains me.


The Bible has a many commonsense statements that any welfare recipient who has been trampled on will appreciate and understand. Consider this statement from Isaiah 10:2,

“Governments make unjust laws to rob the poor of their rights.”

  1. Upon discovering that 15,000 welfare recipients had been convicted of law that did not exist, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott joined forced to put through the retro’ legislation that the High Court booted out on May 8th last year.
  2. Paragraph 51, sub-paragraph xxiiiA requires that the Federal Parliament makes laws for “THE PROVISION” of a welfare allowance but breaching legislation is all about DEPRIVING people of this constitution right.
  3. WORK FOR THE DOLE – the same paragraph makes it unconstitutional to link dole payments to “civil conscription” activities, e.g. Work for the Dole!
  4. Work for the dole pays about $6 per hour but the minimum wage is $17.05 per hour plus other award rates, holiday pay, superannuation etc. It is thus legitimized forced under-award payment employment.
  5. Breaching penalties and  forced labour is not only labour-market-exploitation, it also violates supposedly “inalienable human rights” conventions that Australia has been a signatory to for decades, e.g. Aricle 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is supposed to guarantee the right to life and security of person.

As a Christian, my obligation is to “Speak up and defend the poor. See that Justice is done.” (proverbs 31, verses 8 & 9.)

  1. Even more blunt is the (paraphrased) statement in Micah, chapter 6, verses 4 – 8, in which God tells his people that he cannot be either flattered or bribed and if people want to worship him, they should get off their butts and see that justice is done.
  2. One of the parables told by Jesus was about a woman who had been denied justice by a corrupt judge. the woman nagged and nagged the judge until, totally exasperated by her nagging, the judge gave her the justice that she was entitled to. The moral of that parable is NEVER EVER GIVE UP and on that note, I leave you with the following cartoon which has deeper significant than first appears.

Commitment_Never give up

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for justice in Australia.




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Rinehart Syndrome: Beyond Quotagate and Breachgate – a letter to Joe Hockey.

Below is the text of a recent letter to the Australian Treasurer, a man who appears to have a very serious case of Rinehart Syndrome. However, before you read what follows, take the time to watch this YouTube video:

If you are about to be, or are, unemployed, are a Uni’ student, or a pensioner, then I suggest that you watch it because it may just save you a load of Rinehart Syndrome generated grief.

[NOTE: The short link for this posting is    ]

Earlier this year I made a submission to the (biased as a bowling ballHanger Royal Commission, pointing out that the root cause of the deaths of 4 ceiling insulation installers was the same as the secretly classified, unreported Quotagate and Breach-gate fatalities. (See recent postings for further details of these preventable deaths.)

It was my contention that the root cause of all of these death was:

[QUOTE] …a culture of reckless indifference by decision makers who were too distant from the human impact of their decisions to know or care about the potentially dangerous consequences of their decisions. [END QUOTE]

In short, politicians, bureaucrats, law enforcement agencies, and the mass media, were totally out of touch with reality and as a direct consequence, people were dying. Joe Hockey recently proved my point by making the totally idiotic claim that “the poor were too poor to drive cars”. Check out this link:

Another out of touch with reality point is that whilst Joe Hockey was the Employment Minister, just like Tony Abbott, he never once reported any of the post breaching fatalities that occurred amongst the unemployed people that he had defrauded by unconstitutionally depriving of a welfare allowance, i.e. “the Dole.”


he and Tony Abbott though it okay to have a senate inquiry, a coroner’s inquest, and even a Royal Commission, into the 4 ‘Roofgate’ fatalities but strangely, the fact that during the Howard Years, the underlying reason why some 7,000 unemployed people committed suicide was of absolutely no importance at all is very strange. I have said it before and I will say it again until there is a public inquiry; these deaths are:

  1. Unreported by the Department of Employment and the Department of Human Services;
  2. Secretly classified by the Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee in November 2005;
  3. Written of as “irrelevant” by the Employment, Workplace relations & Education Committee;
  4. Ignored by the Environment, Communication & Arts Committee when it conducted the initial ‘Roofgate” inquiry in February 2010;
  5. Not on the Queensland Coroner’s radar when he conducted the ‘Roofgate Inquest in 2013;
  6. Dismissed by the Hanger Royal Commission, despite the fact that the “WHY” question opened the door to very close scrutiny of the estimated 15,000+ fatalities that predated, or occurred in parallel, with the ‘Roofgate’ fatalities;
  7. Most, if not all, can probably  be classified as “Unlawful Killings;
  8. The Federal Police and other “Alphabet Warriors” such as the ACC, ASIO, ACMA, HREOC, OCO and SAPOL don’t want to know about them and in some cases have gone to extreme lengths to avoid investigating this still rising death toll.


Dear Sir,

Re:       Would you please carefully consider the following issues carefully.

(A)       The clear parallels between the 2009-10 ‘Roofgate’ disaster and your federal budget.

(B)       Deficits are a normal, reasonable way of maintaining quality of life or lifestyle.

(C)       Amicus Curiae: The Victorian Coroner vs. Hanger Royal Commission Report.

(D)       The ‘Quotagate’ Information Kit.

Point A: The clear parallels between the ‘Roofgate’ disaster and your Federal Budget.

Despite the ECA Senate Committee’s inquiry (Feb’ 2010), the Queensland Coroner’s inquest in 2013, and the recently completed Hanger Royal Commission inquiry, it is abundantly clear that the Abbott Government has failed to understand that placing fiscal priorities ahead of public safety is no longer a viable political or legal option. Far worse than the manifestly negative humanitarian impact of the now defunct Work Choices legislation, the current Federal Budget is another major national disaster for workers and the nation’s most impoverished citizens! To conjoin and paraphrase key comments from both the Queensland Coroner, Michael Barnes, and the Queensland Attorney-General, Jarrod Bleijie, the Federal Budget isa chaotic, rushed and underdone Federal Government policy” that seriously damages the national economy, destroys jobs, and, worst of all, appears to have been so financially focussed, that in exactly the same manner as the Rudd Government’s ‘Roofgate” disaster, by being so fiscal issues focussed at the expense of public safety, has once more fatally compromised public safety.

Point B: Deficits are a perfectly normal way of maintaining quality of life.

For some inexplicable reason, the Coalition seems to treat budget deficits as though they were a disaster. The reality is that they are a fact of life for almost every household in the nation. Each time I switch on a light or any other mains powered electrical device, I place myself in a deficit situation because I am incurring a debt with my power supplier. Ditto every time I turn on a mains water supply connected tap to wash, cook, or water the garden. My house has a mortgage and is taxed $4 a day just for existing. Non-home owners, other than the homeless or military personnel on deployment, incur a rent deficit. Many expensive household items, e.g. cars, and furniture, are commonly bought on credit. Debt is thus a core component of the national economy and is often crucial in maintaining a personal lifestyle. Properly managed, debt is a major benefit to both personal and national budgets. By sacrificing the nation’s automotive industry, and by seriously downgrading the nation’s education and health systems, the Abbott Government has created massive national voter alarm about just how out of touch with reality it now is.

Point C:          Amicus Curiae: Victorian Coroner vs. Hanger Royal Commission Report.

The deaths of 2 homeless people in Victoria on July 25th only serve to drive home the deplorable focus upon fiscal policy at the expense of public safety.

As I have pointed out to the Victorian Coroner, Justice Ian Gray, in my initial Amicus Curiae submissions, if these 2 young people have died because they had been unconstitutionally deprived of welfare payments and were so impoverished that they were then forced to seek shelter from the winter cold by living in a car,[1] then their deaths are almost certainly Unlawful Deaths rather than deaths by Misadventure, i.e. they were/are probably Manslaughter due to Criminal Negligence.

In a letter dated 18th May 2010, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill stated that “Centrelink did not collect Post Breaching Terminal Outcome statistics.” That statement simply highlights a fact that is evident in every report ever made public by the Department of the Employment, the Commonwealth Employment Service, the Job Network, the Department of Social Security/Human Services and Centrelink. For decades, what the reports of these agencies have done is, in often excruciatingly mundane detail, is emphasize the financial benefits of breaching activities whilst totally excluding any references to the “negative impacts” of this human rights violating, unconstitutional fraud, e.g. evictions, the problems of homelessness and the issue of “survivor sex” that was carefully surveyed and detailed by the Salvation Army in 2003. The most significant statistical “negative impact” that is omitted from ALL of these reports is the post-breaching death toll triggered by breaching activity.

Cross examining Kevin Rudd, Wayne Swan and Peter Garrett at the Hanger Royal Commission was a brilliant political mud-slinging tactic that has the potential to seriously undermine the general public’s confidence in the ALP under Bill Shorten’s leadership. However, a clear legal precedent has now firmly been establishing for a (Victorian) Coroner’s Court to subpoena prime ministers, federal treasurers and any other federal government ministers, past and present, e.g. yourself, to explain why the post-breaching fatalities were never ever mentioned in the tsunami of reports to the Federal Parliament.

On February 12th 2010, Tony Abbott was quick to point the finger at Peter Garrett and make the headline grabbing “industrial manslaughter” comment. The only problem with that was he had the proverbial

“3-fingers pointing backwards” problem in that in his capacity as a former Employment Minister, he had never once reported any of the post-breaching fatalities that had occurred. Considering his key role in ‘Quotagate’, this no surprise as, under criminal laws in New South Wales and South Australia, any of the Quotagate-triggered-fatalities that occurred in these two states are most probably ‘Felony Murders’. [2]

I believe that public awareness of the appallingly large scale of the unreported post-breaching death toll would have provoked a response to the plight of the homeless that may have seen urgently needed aid quickly provided to our nation’s homeless. It is my contention that the mindset that caused the deaths of Matthew Fuller, Mitchel Sweeny, Reuben Barnes and Marcus Wilson, may have thus played a crucial role in the two Ballarat fatalities.

Information to be provided to the inquest will include both my submissions to the Hanger Royal Commission and the Commission’s emailed responses. I shall be submitting this to the inquest in order to demonstrate that the Hanger Royal Commission was brazenly biased in refusing to examine the key role that the official concealment of the post-breaching deaths played in promoting a Culture of Reckless Indifference to the potentially lethal consequences of ideology-driven fiscal policies and practices.

Point D:          The ‘Quotagate’ Information Kit – Holden jobs can still be saved if…

Check my home address using Google’s street view utility; I live just 500 metres east of the doomed General Motors- Holden manufacturing plant at Elizabeth South, a geographic fact that I intend to capitalize upon. The cavalier destruction of Australia’s automotive manufacturing industry is going to have devastating effects upon the lives of those who livelihood has so casually been destroyed by Tony Abbott’s hard-line fiscal policies. I thus have an audience that is far more open to viable solutions to their problem.

  1. Last night, Channel 7 and Channel 9 news broadcasts had a segment in which GM-H officials reportedly stated that they will stay in business until 2017. However, as the reports clearly stated, this may not be possible because component manufacturers may soon be out-of-business.
  2. Apparently. some of the supply chain companies rely on bank financing to operate and their cash-flow is dependent upon having long-term contracts with automotive manufacturers. With the looming closure of these assembly plants, that once reliable source of revenue will disappear and as a direct consequence, the parts needed by assembly plants will not be available and the car manufacturing plants may therefore be forced to shut down much earlier than anticipated.
  3. Did your economic rationalist theories factor in this logical response from (bank) loan account managers who have a statutory Due Diligence obligation to shareholders, not to loan money to any businesses that may not be able to repay loans because the Abbott Government has deliberately undermined the economic viability of our nation’s $7 Billion-a-year car manufacturing industry?
  4. When many thousands of people are forced out of the workforce because of the economic rationalist policies of the Abbott Government, there will be no immediately available replacement jobs for this huge influx of additional jobseekers. Mitsubishi Australia shut down in 2004 but the reality is that 10 years on, many of those who lost their jobs at that time still rely upon a welfare payment as either their primary or sole source of income maintenance.
  5. Fortunately, paragraph 51 (xxiiiA) places a constitutional obligation upon the Abbott Government to provide a welfare payment to these people. (That will cost far more than any manufacturing subsidies!)
  6. What therefore is your projected Estimated Opportunity Cost for the massive spike in welfare payments that will be required to support the people who will shortly be unemployed when our (now unsubsidized) national car manufacturing industry collapses?

The Quotagate Information Kit: A member of the teaching profession since 1971, I intend to use my professional skills to educate soon-to-be-unemployed people. The information kit outlines their constitutional rights, and the no-so-minor fact of the unreported post-breaching fatalities that are:

  1. Secretly classified as “confidential” by the Senate’s Leg-Con Committee;
  2. Twice dismissed as “irrelevant” by the EWRE Committee;
  3. Ignored by the Senate’s ECA Committee;
  4. Repeatedly ignored by the ‘Alphabet Warriors”, e.g. the AFP, ACC, HREOC, OCO, ACMA;
  5. Repeatedly ignored by the apparently extremely biased Hanger Royal Commission.

Initial feedback on the “Burn Notice” video is that it grabs people’s attention.

For a decade, many people have ignored my concerns about the unconstitutional, human rights violating treatment of welfare recipients. However, now that some of these people are about to become your so-called “Dole Bludgers” because of your ideological insensitivity and utter ruthlessness, they are now starting to pay attention.

Unlike Justice Rares comments in his speech to the AGS Law Administrators conference on June 20th 2013, that most Australians do not know their rights because they do not care, I believe that they do not know because they are not taught their constitutional, legal and inalienable human rights!

It should be no surprise that as a teacher and workplace trainer I firmly believe that education is the key to remedying this lack of knowledge. Consequently, before the local factories shut down for Christmas, I intend to insure that there is widespread distribution of the Quotagate Information Kit so that as many people as possible can take time to consider the potential options that can be explored in an effort to maintain their jobs and the economic viability of our nation’s car manufacturing industry.

I am sure you if you watch the enclosed video and read the information in the information kit booklet, that you will be able to determine what many of these soon to be unemployed people may decide is the most viable option for ensuring that they may be able to retain their long-term job security and its associated lifestyle benefits.

STOP PRESS: The “Waivergate” 6 Week Rule Scam. (See page 16 of my first letter to Justice Gray.)

Yesterday afternoon I found the following message had been posted on my Ronald’s space web site:

Hi Ron…. I thought that I would advise your followers here that I did exactly what you mentioned in your previous blog, and I WON….. I persisted and also contacted my federal member of parliament… and all money deducted from me WITHOUT MY PERMISSION OR NOTIFICATION was returned to me….. however, months later, I received an ‘amended’ statement for my tax return for 2012/2103….. for ‘owing’ them money… so I waited for another ‘amended’ statement to wipe that balance back to nothing….. therefore, (don’t yell at me) I didn’t put in a tax return last year…. I was on Centrelink for the whole year so for that financial year they are sitting on $210 of money that I asked them to take as tax from my Newstart Allowance….. This financial year however, I have been working, so I am dreading doing a tax return…. I used to be able to afford an accountant, but this year I will be attempting it myself and they can scratch their own heads at their own figures……. Anywho…. I’ve talked about the 6 week rule to a lot of people on facebook and I’ve offered help to some…. THANK YOU again for this blog…. if it wasn’t for you, they would have $8000 of my money that they didn’t deserve…..

Hugs, Carolyn

This is one very happy former victim of the Waivergate Scam who used the information that I had posted on my web site and successfully fought this truly scandalous fraud. I shall shortly be providing the Queensland Coroner, Michael Barnes, with the details of a victim who did NOT survive this brutal scam.

Yours truly,

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for Justice in Australia.

FOOTNOTES in the letter:

[1] Yes, the poor do own cars! They use them to transport grand-children or even as emergency accommodation.

Now retired and thus having much more time to both care for my 91 year-old mother and to also provide assistance to our adult children, our grand-parenting responsibilities mean that my wife and I now travel much more than when I worked full-time. You are so out-of-touch with the lifestyles of the retired and the unemployed that your lack of real-world knowledge of the practical consequences of your ideology driven decisions is mind-bogglingly infuriating!

[2] The ‘Breach-gate’ fatalities that you also never reported to the Federal Parliament may also be Unlawful Killings.



Posted in News and politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

QUOTAGATE and BREACHGATE: The Howard Government’s “confidential” AND “irrelevant” WELFARE PENALTIES PROGRAMS TRIGGERED deaths.

 If you have just seen the BURN NOTICE video at:

then you should read this publication which contains documents and news reports that provide a look at Australia’s appallingly deadly human rights violations. (If you have not seen the BURN NOTICE video, do so right now.)

With a probable death toll of over 2,600 victims,Quotagate is Australia’s worst case of systemic fraud and mass murder. The scale of this senseless slaughter can be seen when compared 2 other acts of ruthless terrorism:

Flight MF 17              “9/11”                “Quotagate.”

      298                         2,977*                     2,631*

( *Estimated death toll figure as the exact number is unknown.)

[ NOTE: The short link URL for this posting is:   ]


Aaron Anderson was the Queensland lawyer who represented the families of Matthew Fuller and Reuben Barnes at the Hanger Royal Commission’s inquiry into the fatal Home Improvement Program. In paragraphs 6.140 and 6.141, he used official testimony at the inquiry to zero in  on the fatal flaw in the Home Improvement Scheme, i.e. the lack of adequate risk assessment.

  1. In FY 2000-01, Centrelink was breaching financially impoverished people at the rate of approximately 3 per minute! 
  2. About 1 in 5 of the people had a mental health problem according to official published mental health reports that were available at that time.
  3. The obvious question then is, what risk assessments was Centrelink using BEFORE and AFTER welfare penalties were imposed?
  4. The Howard Government was so busy applying the lucrative PIT penalties at the rate of approximately 3 per minute that there were absolutely no HUMAN IMPACT risk assessment processes in place.
  5. It was basically a case of “SOUND ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT could be ‘achieved’ by depriving at-risk people of their only financial means of support and to hell with inconvenient “Human Imppact” issues like fatalities, homelessness, et cetera!

 Once you understand that no risk assessment procedures were in place, (by appropriately qualified mental health persons or sociologists),  then you can perhaps understand why NOT ONE of the post breaching  fatalities was ever “collected” by Centrelink or reported by Tony Abbott, Jocelyn Newman and Amanda Vanstone to the Federal Parliament. In effect, Centrelink was far too busy saving money for the Howard Government by defrauding welfare recipients of their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to a welfare benefit to have even a split second of time for the far more important task of actually saving lives instead of placing them at risk!

THE ANDERSON EXTRACT: ==============================================================

6.160 In his evidence, Andrew Wilson highlighted the need for effective reporting lines to Ministers on issues of risk.

“MR HOWE: Yes. And just on this question of the rollout date of 1 July 2009, if it hademerged that that was not achievable in a way that satisfactorily accommodated a risk ofinjury or death, it would have been the responsibility of a number of senior public servants to have drawn that fact to the attention of relevant Ministers; wouldn’t it?

 THE WITNESS: It would have been the responsibility of the Department of Environment todraw it to the attention of their Minister, but it would also have been the responsibility of the Department to draw it to the broader public service community, ourselves included in the Office of the Coordinator General, because if you got to a situation where, as the responsible area, you felt that you were not going to be able to deliver a key plank of the government’s economic stimulus package, it would have flow-on effects to the Departmentof Finance and the Department of – and the Treasury, so you would need to inform a broad range of people within the bureaucracy, but the first port – the first point of call would be your Minister, to inform them that it is not possible to – these are the issues that we face,these are the risks that we face, we need to discuss and analyse whether or not you can actually achieve the date that the government has given you.

 MR HOWE: And it might seem obvious, but in fact, Minister Garrett, Parliamentary Secretary Arbib, and the Prime Minister would have needed to be informed.

 THE WITNESS: That’s correct. Yes.”

 6.161   “It is clear by the evidence given by Mark Arbib, Peter Garrett and Kevin Rudd that critical information in relation to the risks of death or serious injury to installers arising out of the performance of work under the HIP was not brought to their attention[1]”.


Centrelink Annual Report , 2011 -12: Risk Management (Page 22)

In 2011–12 the department continued to refine its risk management approach. A new Risk Management Policy, which forms the foundation for effective risk management in the department, was endorsed by the Executive Committee. The policy outlines the key elements for identifying and managing risks. It ensures consistency with best practice and the risk management international standard AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management: Principles and Guidelines. Assessing, treating and monitoring risks are integral to our planning and decision‑making processes.

Risks are managed at two levels—strategic and operational. During development of the new Strategic Plan, strategic risks were identified and as part of the department’s business planning cycle, operational risks were developed. Senior executive staff manage these risks. These arrangements ensure the department maximises opportunities and minimises uncertainty. In 2011–12 a department‑wide escalation coordination approach was also introduced to advise internal stakeholders about emerging areas of risk.


In March 2012 the department participated in the annual Comcover Risk Management Benchmarking Program. The department was awarded a 6 per cent discount (out of a possible 10 per cent) on the 2012–13 insurance premium. This resulted in approximately $419 577 in savings.


  1. Centrelink is accountable to the Minister for HUMAN SERVICES. Logically, Centrelink management would put their primary focus upon the HUMAN IMPACT of their policies and practices.
  2. However, Centrelink management clearly make EXACTLY the same mistake that the Department of Environment bureaucrats did with the Home Improvement Program, aka “Roofgate”.
  3. They have placed their focus upon internal organizational financial risk management instead of the core issue that they are paid to provide a RISK FREE service to extremely vulnerable, ‘AT-RISK’ people.
  4. How many of Centrelink’s clients are impoverished, with an income below the poverty line?
  5. How many are functionally illiterate?
  6. How many are known to suffer mental health problems?
  7. How many fit in to 2 or more ‘AT-RISK’ categories?

These questions provide the basis for PRIMARY RISK MANAGEMENT, with financial considerations a very distant second. With such SLOPPY HUMAN IMPACT RISK MANAGEMENT, is it really any surprise that the Quotagate fatalities are  (still) unreported to the Federal Parliament by senior public servants, e.g. Centrelink’s management team. They are also:

  1. Secretly classified as “confidential” by the Howard Government’s Leg-Con Committee. (Anti-Terrorism Bill#2 legislation – November 2005)
  2. NOTE: To view and/or print each document separately, double click a document and it will open in a new page. Use the <=  to then click back to this posting.)
  3. Officially "Not yet available" this submission is secretly classified as confidential in order to hide breaching fraud and fatalities.

    Officially “Not yet available” this submission is secretly classified as confidential in order to hide breaching fraud and fatalities.

AARON ANDERSON’s comment above is repeated  here to specifically contrast the above “Centrelink does not collect…” statement with the Rudd Government’s fatal (Rinehart Syndrome) blunders.

“It is clear by the evidence given by Mark Arbib, Peter Garrett and Kevin Rudd that critical information in relation to the risks of death or serious injury to installers arising out of the performance of work under the HIP was not brought to their attention

  1. 3 months after being secretly classified as “confidential” by the Leg-Con Committee, the Quotagate and “Breach-gate” deaths were dismissed by the Howard Government’s Work Choices Committee as “irrelevant”.
  2. Given that the deaths violated numerous federal, state and/or territory laws, is it any surprise that those people most responsible for thousands of preventable fatalities desperately wanted to fob me off and to  “regard this matter as closed”?
  3. EWRE irelevant doc

    Another "don't copy, don't distribute" Senate gag intended to prevent the general public from finding out about the death toll caused by the Howard Government's illegal Breaching performance Indicator target Quotas.

    Another “don’t copy, don’t distribute” Senate gag intended to prevent the general public from finding out about the death toll caused by the Howard Government’s illegal Breaching performance Indicator target Quotas.

  4. Term of Reference #3 for the ECA Committee’s inquiry into the Roofgate Disaster was a muck raking “Any other matters.” This backfired on the Coalition because it opened the door to the secretly classified death toll from the Howard Government’s illegal enforcement of unconstitutional breaching quotas! in order to maintain the secrecy about the Quotagate killings, the ECA Inquiry rejected my submission and kindly provided me with yet another, ‘don’t copy, don’t distribute’ Senate suppression order.

Each of the above Australian Senate committees was misusing its lawful authority to conceal the death toll caused by the unconstitutional breaching penalties, a death toll that may exceed 15,000 in number over a period of almost 30 years.

  1. MALFEASANCE: They all abused their lawful authority to cover up the Howard Government’s illegal use of breaching quotas and the death toll caused by that outrageous criminal abuse of lawful authority.
  2. The death toll was also totally ignored by the “Alphabet Warriors”, e.g. the AFP, ACC, ACMA, ASIO  and other agencies with law enforcement powers. All had constitutional and statutory obligations to take action to prevent further lose of life by conducting criminal investigations into the Quotagate and Breach-gate fatalities.
  3. It’s only dole bludgers so who give a stuff about how many die! Was that their amoral, sociopathic logic?)AFP refusal to investigate Perksgate email
  4. The AFP was working in partnership WITH Centrelink to catch welfare fraudsters but refused to investigate fraud BY Centrelink . I believe that's what is known as nemo iudex in causa sua, i.e. protecting your own patch.

    The AFP was working in partnership WITH Centrelink to catch welfare fraudsters but refused to investigate fraud BY Centrelink . I believe that’s what is known as nemo iudex in causa sua, i.e. protecting your own patch.

    Letter from the  Ombudsman's Office re High Court challenge to Centrelink breaching.11-05-10 ACC refusalEvery agency contacted has had a seemingly valid excuse, at least to themselves, for ignoring the unconstitutional, ruthless, human rights violation of welfare recipients. The reality is that no democratically elected government in Australia has the legal right to engage in activities that deliberately endanger or kill vulnerable, at-risk Aussie Battlers!

  5. Ignored by the mass media as being too unimportant to report. In point of fact, News Ltd newspapers have actively encouraged the vilification of the poor and totally disregarded the fact that Breaching legislation and Work for the Dole laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!AAAAA15 Penberty article“The first bludger uprising” the world has ever seen? This is UTTER GARBAGE! Riots by the poor and down trodden minorities have been a major problem for governments throughout recorded history. The Rome Colosseum was built mainly as a means to distract Rome’s poor whom the rich feared would riot. The French and American Revolutions were also about those on the receiving end of injustice and greed fighting for a fair go. I am sure that most Australians also know why the Eureka Stockade revolt occurred, i.e.the Victorian Government  exploited gold miners who then (literally) fought for a fair go!

 The editor of the Sunday Mail newspaper in Adelaide, David Penberthy’s concept of “humanitarian ” is to sink the boot into the victims of political policies that leave impoverished people in appallingly desperate straits.

How does he justify the fact that he has never once pointed out to his readers the unconstitutional, human rights violating laws that have resulted in the deaths of so many welfare recipients? The answer is that he does not justify his biased, partisan actions because they cannot be justified. 27-714 Work 4 Dole 4 all(2)It does not matter what warm and fuzzy rationalizations are used by Tony  Abbott and his Government to justify the Work for the Dole policy, for it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Paragraph 51 (xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution specifically prohibits the Federal Parliament from making laws that link welfare payments to the payment of welfare benefits. The constitution clearly states that it is the responsibility of the Federal Parliament to make laws for:

The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances:


(a) “THE PROVISION OF…” Check any dictionary and you will find that “provision” is a word that means “to PROVIDE”. Welfare penalties that turn off the dole are unconstitutional because the obligation upon the Federal Parliament is to PROVIDE welfare benefits to the needy. (ACCC vs TPG -HCA 54, [2013] ) the  “Dominant Message” is a High Court Decision that may prove to be useful in sorting out what “PROVISION” means in the constitution.)

  • Breaching and ‘compliance failure’ penalties are about violating this constitutional obligation for the express purpose of deliberately DEPRIVING welfare recipients of a welfare benefit.

(b) THE PHRASE IN BRACKETS:- (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription).

  • Yes, the brackets are actually in the constitution!
  • This is a significant constitutional constraint  that was placed in the constitution by Australians in 1946 in the hope that it would bring an end to the ruthless exploitation of the nation’s unemployed by political parties and unscrupulous employers.
  • Work for the Dole is about being forced to work for $6 an hour when Australia’s minimum wage, (today) is just over $17 per hour.
  • There is no sick pay, holiday pay, long service leave or severance pay entitlements.
  • Just a far-below-minimum-award-rates slave wage that is close to Gina Rinehart’s infamous belief that that “workers are happy to work for $2 a day!
  • (Does Ms Rinehart work for that level of income or is $600 per second closer to the mark?)

Anyone who supports the unconstitutional, exploitative $6 a day Work for the Dole wage is obviously also prepared to work for the same wage?

Pigs ribs they are! most people would scream blue murder at being FORCED to work for $6 an hour; so how come so many of these same people think that Work for the Dole is a good idea? Can anyone visualize either David Penberthy or the News Ltd national political editor, Samantha Maiden, working for $6 an hour?

  • 100,000 unconstitutionally have dole cut off.

    100,000 unconstitutionally have dole cut off.

Note the statement in the 3rd paragraph that “breaches include failing to attend Work for the Dole appointments.” The sick reality is that Work for the Dole ‘compliance failures’ are used as an excuse to deprive people of a welfare allowance. What you actually have are not 2, but 3 deliberate violations of the constitutional rights of the unemployed.

  • The 3rd violation of constitutional rights comes from paragraph 75 (iii) of the Australian Constitution which states that the Jurisdiction of the High Court includes:
  • “75. In all matters–  (iii) In which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party:”
  • Breaching  (now called “Compliance Failure Penalties”) is about accusing welfare recipients of breach of Contract, which is constitutionally a matter for the courts, and unfairly and unconstitutionally having PUBLIC SERVANTS with no legal qualifications make a decision that very conveniently puts a BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR into the Federal Government’s coffers.
  • Quite clearly the was, and still is, a massive financial incentive for political parties to ignore the humanitarian impact of the unconstitutional legislation, which brings us to  the infamy of the QUOTAGATE FRAUD.


The media release below provides insight into the Quotagate Fraud, i.e. the Howard Government’s illegal abuse of the unconstitutional Breaching laws. by enforcing the “Performance Indicator Targets” the Howard Government was able to “ramp up the volume” on the number of welfare recipients who were illegally deprived of a welfare allowance.

Centrelink staff risked their jobs to expose this fraud, but the mass media AND the labour Party both moved quickly to bury this political scandal.

Centrelink staff risked their jobs to expose this fraud, but the mass media AND the labour Party both moved quickly to bury this political scandal.

As you can see from the extract below from a Centrelink annual report, the “balanced scorecard” of so-called savings was staggering, almost a billion dollars a year was raised by deliberately defrauding welfare recipients.


DSS and Centrelink annual reports are big on "Scorecard" savings but are also TOTALLY DEVOID of any reports about the humanitarian consequences caused by those savings. The absence of this data from these reports to parliament makes it quite clear that the bureaucrats responsible for these reports, KNEW what they were hiding from the parliament and the public.

DSS and Centrelink annual reports are big on “Scorecard” savings but are also TOTALLY DEVOID of any reports about the humanitarian consequences caused by those savings. The absence of this data from these reports to parliament makes it quite clear that the bureaucrats responsible for these reports, KNEW what they were hiding from the parliament and the public.

What is missing from this “balanced scorecard” of so-called “Savings” was the even more staggering death toll that Centrelink, and the Howard Government, hid by the simple process set out below:


In just one simple statement, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill explains how post-breaching fatalities have been kept from the public for decades, i.e. they did not bother to "collect" this data.

In just one simple statement, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill explains how post-breaching fatalities have been kept from the public for decades, i.e. they did not bother to “collect” this data.

The Independent Pearce Inquiry was set up by welfare agencies after they were overwhelmed by a tsunami of desperate welfare recipients seeking a means of surviving the Howard Government’s illegal misuse of th unconstitutional breaching legislation.


Centrelinh whistle blowers testified at the Independent Pearce Inquiry in to the impact of ther Howard Government's breaching tsunami that they were ebing forced to meet breaching quotas. Since the quotas were illegal, Senator Vanstone denied there use but the statistics tell the true story, i.e. 346,078 breaches in FY 2000-01.

Centrelink whistle blowers testified at the Independent Pearce Inquiry in to the impact of the Howard Government’s breaching tsunami that they were being forced to meet breaching quotas. Since the quotas were illegal, Senator Vanstone denied there use but the statistics tell the true story, i.e. 346,078 breaches in FY 2000-01.

“I’ve been on the number of breach decisions.”   Lets just have a quick look at that statement by Senator Amanda Vanstone:

  1. “Breaching” was, and still is, an unconstitutional activity.
  2. “…advised by Centrelink management that were no explicit or implicit targets “.  REMEMBER, this is the same management team that had for 20 years never bothered to “collect” and report the death toll caused by the unconstitutional breaching legislation.
  3. Between 1st July 2000 and 30th June 2002, more than 600,00 times, impoverished welfare recipients were denied their constitutional rights and Centrelink (on behalf of the Federal Government) raked in a mind bogglingly massive $1,623,400,000

BREACHING was literally: “The targeted, deliberate removal of the only means of support from emotionally fragile and/or financially impoverished people who had no other means of support in meeting their most basic costs of living.”

When you stop hundreds of thousands of vulnerable, impoverished people from meeting their most basic costs of living FOR 3 MONTHS, is it really any great surprise that you have a death toll measured in the thousands?

Is it also any great surprise that those responsible for this massive, deliberately created, death toll would leave no stone unturned in deliberately concealing and denying any knowledge of this death toll?


Who’s Who?
Gang leader:        John Howard.
Bag-man:              Peter Costello
‘Hit’ team:            Tony Abbott
                                 Jocelyn Newman
                                 Amanda Vanstone.
The victims:        750,000 impoverished welfare recipients.

The Breach-gate Gang: Their actions do speak louder than their words.

  1. Virtually every member of the Australian Federal Parliament for the last 30 years!
  2. In 2011, the voted for the retrospective legislation that the High Court kicked on May 8th 2013 citing it as “statutory fiction.”
  3. Almost a year ago, at 10.30 AM on the 31st August 2013, I spoke with Senator Xenophon and asked him about both the High Court’s “statutory fiction” decision and why he had done nothing about exposing the secret confident classification of the Quotagate fatalities. I am still waiting for him to take action!

    Senator Xenophon under guard before being classified as a terrorist and being  deported by Malaysia.

    Senator Xenophon under guard before being classified as a terrorist and being deported by Malaysia.

  4. No matter how ‘concerned’ and ‘caring’ our federal politicians may sound, their actions with the “Jail-gate “statutory fiction’ cover-up clearly reveals that when push comes to shove, violating the legal, constitutional and fundamental human rights of Australia’s disadvantaged is as easy as breathing!

The Breach-gate Fatalities.

The precise number is currently unknown but there are perhaps as many as 15,000 suicides from breaching with a similar or even larger number of deaths from other causes.

Justice Moynihan’s Manifest Ostensible Bias decision.

Ignoring the appalling human impact of Quotagate is not an option because “Equality before the Law” is both constitutional responsibility that you and I must uphold and a basic human right for the victims of these crimes. If politicians can make up rules that exempt themselves from our system of justice, then there is no justice!

If the Quotagate gang are not held accountable in a court of law for their unlawful actions, i.e. the breaching quota fraud, the human rights violations and the flow-on fatalities, then anyone convicted of causing an unlawful death could argue “Procedural Unfairness due to Manifest Ostensible Bias”.

Does anyone really want our nation’s jails emptied of violent killers? Ignoring the lethal consequences of Quotagate could become an Ostensible Bias battering ram, i.e. the legal grounds for Exculpation, that smash open the gates of every prison in the nation!

  1. Although 87 of Queensland’s ‘Dr Death’ patients died and another 106 allegedly required major corective surgery, today Dr. Patel is a free man. Jayant_patelWhat worked for him could also work for those responsible for the Snowtown ‘Bodies in the Bank’ murders or the Truro Murders.
  2. If Peter Cowan and Gerard Baden-Clay are to remain accountable for their alleged crimes, then those people responsible for the alleged QUOTAGATE triggered deaths of welfare recipients, i.e. the QUOTAGATE GANG, must also be held equally accountable in a court of law.
  3. The reality is that if we turn a blind eye to the Quotagate and Breach-gate fatalities, then we are turning a blind eye to the Australian Constitution which, in paragraph 5,  clearly states that “the law is binding on the people.”
  4. The Federal Police excuse about not investigating Quotagate, Travelgate or Perksgate because of “government protocols’ is simply legal DIARRHOEA that just makes a total joke out of our nation’s criminal justice system!

Do we really want a criminal justice court system that has no option but to open every cell door of every jail in the nation, simply because the “Alphabet Warriors’ and self-serving public servants have put their own agendas ahead of either upholding the Law or doing their job properly?

No police office or any other person with law enforcement or investigative powers has the right to refuse to uphold the constitution and the law. When I say “no person” I include the highest office in the land. Quentin BryceIn September 2009, Quentin Bryce knew about Quotagate and kept her mouth shut instead of using her position as the Head of State to demand an inquiry into this fraud and its associated death toll. just DAYS later, as a direct consequence of her silence, the Roofgate Disaster claimed its first victims, i.e. Matthew Fuller and a co-worker who received horrific burns. Nice one DAME Bryce. Are you as proud of your silence as your are of being elevated to the Peerage?

The Queen's Vice-Regal representative in Australia does not wish to accept responsibility for the Australian Government laws that regulate the mass media. Laws that failed to protect Jacintha Saldanha from an illegally recorded phone call.

The Queen’s Vice-Regal representative in Australia does not wish to accept responsibility for the Australian Government laws that regulate the mass media. Laws that failed to protect Jacintha Saldanha from an illegally recorded phone call.

Fast forward 3 years and Quentin Bryce was still trying to avoid responsibity for her actions. Just 3 months and 1 week after this letter was written, the High Court turfed the “statutory fiction” diarrhoea retro legislation that she had had signed into law.

Make no mistake! Idiots do not become the Governor-General. Quentin Bryce was a highly qualified and experienced lawyer and she therefore knew precisely what she was doing when she decided to say and do nothing about the Quotagate and Breach-gate fatalities.

The death of Matthew Fuller was an unexpected consequence of Quentin Bryce’s decision to stay silent. Unfortunately, it was to simply be be the first of many more deaths!Sunday Mail Matt Fuller fatality report

If we put power, position, wealth or prestige ahead of constitutional law, then we have no law. It is as simple as that.

Canberra Killers Club

If we refuse to hold these people accountable for the Quotagate and Breach-gate fatalities, the lesson from the proposed Work for the Dole scheme is that the rate at which human rights abuses and their contempt for the people of Australia will only get worse.


Centrelink 10 a day prosecutions             10 people prosecuted every day; many for a law that did not exist!

In FY 2005-06, the Howard Government spent S10 MILLION of taxpayers money promoting this advertisement. At the same time John Howard and his team of cabinet Ministers were defrauding welfare recipients and concealing the fatalities triggered by this fraud.


  1. Why have the Federal Police repeatedly refused to investigate Quotagate, Travelgate, Perksgate and the Breach-gate crimes? Was it because of a secret ‘dirty deal’ with the Howard Government?
  2. Why has ASIO stayed silent about the Quotagate fatalities. They have known about them for AT LEAST the last 8 years?
  3. Was ASIO hoping to do a similar dirty deal that which the AFP had apparently secretly brokered with the Howard Government?
  4. Was ASIO delayed by the Kevin 07 election win and thus has had to wait for a Coalition win before ‘asking’ (blackmailing?) the Abbott Government in to give ASIO the power to secretly hack into our home computers?
  5. Why have so many other government agencies adopted a hands-off policy when issues involving alleged corruption by federal politicians pop up?

The ACMA does not investigate alleged offenders      Author:  Rochelle Zurnamer – Manager, the ACMA Broadcasting Investigations Unit. Correspondence 1st November 2011 (re ACMA Report 2780.) Since when did the ACMA have the legal or constitutional power to REFUSE to investigate politicians?


Justice Steven Rares speaking at the AGS Law Administrators Conference Canberra. June 2013. (LEGALITY, RIGHTS AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, Paragraph 30.)

The principal means by which liberty can be eroded today in Australia is by a law enacted by the Parliament or by its delegated legislative power or by a State or Territory law.

Look – Listen – Believe – Think – Act.

  1. ACT – Start by sharing this web link and the YouTube video link below with your friends.
  2. Link this web page to your Facebook page.
  3. Ask your friends to also share the links on their Facebook pages.
    Do you have a TWITTER account? Then spread the word.
  4. Act now – Demand an investigate of Quotagate and the Breach-gate fatalities before more people die.The link below is a Facebook page about a young HOMELESS couple who died last Friday whilst trying to keep warm by burning a small butane gas heater in their car.

As I stated earlier in this publication, at least half, possibly more of the breaching triggered fatalities are NOT SUICIDES. Homelessness kills just as effectively as a gun, a knife, jumping of a cliff or slamming a car into a tree at high speed.

We have to restore sanity in our system of government because the only other option is the madness of a self-centred ‘dog-eat dog’ society in which the strong like Gina Rinehart and powerful commercial interests exploit the weak for everything that they can get.

Instead of a giving the poor a “fair go”, somehow, as a society, we have allowed those we elected to run the country  to turn the poor into “fair game.”

Aussie Diggers did not fight and die so that corrupt politicians and greedy corporations could exploit our nation’s poor as cheap labour. the fought and died so that their children and grand-children might have a life of dignity and respect if they fell into hard times.

Lawson Glassop “We were the rats”, page 256.                                                                      3rd Edition Horwitz Publications (1965)

We need to far more than rock up at an ANZAC parade on the 25th April

“It was. I had said. our heritage. This was our world. We could not help what it was like. But by God we would take it as it was, as it had been left to us. and some day. Perhaps, we would ‘shatter it to bits and then remould it nearer to our heart’s desire.” (sic)

Every day, we must honour our Diggers by ensuring that what they fought and died for lives on so that our children may reap the reward of their sacrifice.000 William Whitford Cropped picture(Least we Forget – Bill Whitford joined up when he was just 17 years old. )

Sadly, like the victims of the “9/11″ terrorist attack, the Bali bombings, and the destruction of Flight MH 17, through no fault of their own, far too many of our fellow Australians have become “dead meat.”

Why is Quotagate the worse case of fraud of mass murder in our nation’s history? Because, like the Stolen Generations’  and the appalling, decades long, sexual abuse of children of in foster care, it is a massive humanitarian disaster that we allowed to happen because we chose not to know about it or to care about it.

We murdered our nation’s real Aussie Battlers with our indifference!

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for Justice in Australia.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment