Part 31: Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity. A warning to Senator Jacqui Lambi that the Turnbull Government is planning to cut the dole whilst raising the terrorist risk for ALL Australians.

Australia’s “irrelevantcrimes against humanity lurched badly in the wrong direction last week. So badly that I decided to even give Senator Jacqui Lambi a heads-up. The Turnbull Government is apparently planning to create 2nd class unemployed citizens by giving Ford, Toyota, Holden and other car industry workers whose jobs have been destroyed, a smaller unemployment payment, perhaps as a ‘reward’ for being foolish and voting for Tony Abbott in the 2013 federal election.

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

Food for though:

Why didn’t the Turnbull Government ask all voters about reducing dole payments for all new unemployed people, BEFORE the July 2nd federal election? Could it be that soon to be unemployed voters and their voting age family members may have decided to vote for other political parties if they knew about this disgraceful policy ‘initiative’ that robs the poor to fund politicians perks?

My email to Senator Lambi

Last week I received a computer generated phone call that was performing a survey for the Turnbull Government. One of the questions stated that the government was considering REDUCING the unemployment benefit to NEW welfare recipients, e.g the people who are loosing their jobs at the Holden’s assembly plant just 700 metres west of my home, The idea is to scrap the allowance paid to cover the cost higher ‘green’ electricity, et cetera. This would reduce the welfare payment by about $4.50 per week which sounds reasonable until you realize that in South Australia, SACOSS is calling for a $55 increase in the dole so that people can SURVIVE.

The proposed cut would leave welfare recipients $60 BELOW subsistence level!

As you are fully aware, MPs and senators score $90 a day “appearance money” PLUS $325 [MY ERROR- it is $273/day]  to live in the home of their partner or spouse when in Canberra. Again, as you are aware, this means buying a house or home unit in a spouse/partner’s name and then paying for it with the TAX EXEMPT [$273-a-day] ‘living away from home (in-your-partner’s home) allowance.’P18 Double Dip MPsHow many readers knew about the above rip-off?

Before cutting welfare expenditure and endangering lives, how about scrapping the two rorts mentioned above. When I read out the “entitlements” that the 226 members receive,which costs up to a massive $390 per year, people are shocked and angered. The Internet is a fantastic research tool and, as a teacher/trainer with almost 50 years experience, I know how to use it find information and then share it around in ways that benefit the community rather than the parliament.

How’s this for the Parliament’s track record of entrenched bigotry and prejudice?

Extract: from 1901 debate on the “Immigration Restriction Act (1901):  “The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman.” Prime Minister Edmund Barton.


Truly, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The moral is that Bigotry is NEVER right, and Senator Hinch wining and dining you to ‘score’ your support for winding back 18C is par for the course. Senator 0.78 of a Quota does not have majority support for restoring Bigotry to its exalted former status. If you have doubts about the impact of bigotry, read any of the Stolen Generation -sexual abuse of children in institutionalized care royal commission reports or the Nyland report here in South Australia.

Winding back 18C will be a massive win for Islamic State as bigotry targeting Muslims will accelerate the rate at which people are recruited. Earlier today, Islamic State released a very professional ‘radicalization’ book (in 7 different languages) calling on Muslims to attack Australians at high profile sporting events using cars, et cetera. Yesterday, a court sentenced a teenager to 10-years in jail for planning to use a car to kill 2 police officers and then cut of their heads with a knife.

WE NOW LIVE IN VERY DANGEROUS TIMES – do not make them even more dangerous by supporting the watering down or the removal of 18C.

Ronald Medlicott

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

Part 30″ Australia’s ‘irrelevant” crimes against humanity. the crucial role of the mass media.

Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity are made possible because the nation’s mass media play a crucial role in helping ensure that these deaths are kept below the radar. Check out this con job below, which, at face value looks so reasonable.

[Note: the short link URL for this page is:  ]

A simple question, but this answer in The Advertiser on 2nd August 2016 is deceptive.

A simple question, but this answer in The Advertiser on 2nd August 2016 is deceptive.

  1. When you are sick, do you call a mechanic or a doctor?

  2. If you car breaks down, do you take it to a doctor or a mechanic?

  3. If you need legal advice, do you get it from a lawyer, or from the person who is suing you?

Getting advice on legal matters from Centrelink’s chief spin doctor, Hank Jongen, the manager of Centrelink’s Media Relations Unit, is anything but smart. Yes, Mr. Jongen is A manager of Centrelink, but not THE manager of Centrelink.

Just as stray dogs have lots of fleas, the Department of Human Services (aka Centrelink) has lots of managers and Mr. Jongen is one of them.

So why did the The Advertiser ask Hank Jongen, a ‘spin doctor’, for legal advice instead of asking a lawyer? Could it be that, as one of Centrelink’s many managers, and also since he is the manager of Centrelink’s spin doctor team, Hank Jongen could be relied upon not to give fair and impartial advice?

Here is what The Advertiser knows about but did not tell in the above article:

“Deciding the facts of a case is a court’s task, not a task for a regulatory authority.”

 You will find the above statement in ASIC v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17   –  Australian High Court 3rd May 2012 at paragraph 143. In addition to reading that paragraph, I recommend reading paragraph 141 where the High Court determined that the “facts” in a case must really be the “facts”, i.e. the truth, and not just someone’s vested interest viewpoint as to what they believe, or wish to present to a court or tribunal as “the facts.”


The other High Court decision that provides the truth of the matter is the High Court’s Bhardwaj decision. Minister for Immigration & Cultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] 209 CLR 597, where the court ruled:

“…a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all. Once that is accepted, it follows that, if the duty of the decision-maker is to make a decision with respect to a person’s rights but, because of jurisdictional error, he or she proceeds to make what is, in law, no decision at all, then, in law, the duty to make a decision remains unperformed.”

If you receive a letter of demand, an SMS or an email from Centrelink stating that you owe them money and that you should pay up with 7 days, your civil rights are being violated, i.e. you are being ripped off and should report it to the police.

Systemic Fraud.

What Centrelink are doing is a crime under section 142  and section 149 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) and you are entitled to demand a police investigation if Centrelink tried to unlawfully  “stupefy and overwhelm” you emotionally by claiming that you must repay the money demanded within a week. The demand below was a cruel con job because determining the facts of that TORT CLAIM was a matter for a court to decide, not Centrelink! The please pay up in a week or contact Centrelink to arrange repayments is nothing more than systemic fraud by those responsible for this and all similar letters. 17-01-13 Centrelink Letter ofDemand

If you do not know what to tell the police, or if they ask for details, tell them to read this web page.

NOTE: If you know someone who either suffered a fatal heart attack or stroke, or committed suicide, after receiving one of these letters, you must contact the police because that death needs to be investigated as a possible murder. A coroner’s court inquest will be required and if the court decides that the claim was a civil rights violation, i.e. a fraud, murder charges could be laid against those Centrelink bureaucrats responsible for this con.

7-1-16 Redacted Centrelink response

Paragraph 5 of the Australian constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth are binding on the courts, judges, and the people. Just because  people have law degrees and fancy titles does not exempt anyone from being held accountable before the law.

Trish Draper's confession: "We all make mistakes."Trish Draper’s mistake was in claiming a spouse travel allowance for someone who was not her spouse. She should have been prosecuted but the mass media did not demand that she be prosecuted.


100,000 unconstitutionally have dole cut off.

Samantha Maiden, as the News Ltd national political editor, “ought to have known” that the ‘no show, no pay’ law [section 42 of the Social Security (administration Act] is both unconstitutional and a crime against humanity. However, she has never mentioned this fact.

Any guesses why this may be so?

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

P.S. Are you comfortable with the fact that banks will take money out of your account and give it to Centrelink with the permission of court? I most certainly am not and will be taking up this issue with ASIC, the one federal government agency that knows all about the Hellicar decision mentioned above because ASIC was the government agency that lost that High Court appeal!

ASIC should therefore know full well that just because Centrelink asks for money to be repaid by a bank, that this cannot occur until AFTER either the account owner has given INFORMED CONSENT or a court, after an impartial review of the primary facts of the matter, has authorized the payment to Centrelink.

Posted in Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. What is the difference between the census ‘Denial of Service Attack’ and Centrelink’s operational ‘Denial of Service Attacks’ on its own clients in order to protect its mainframe ISIS computer system?

Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity took an unusual twist with the national census Denial of Service attack on Tuesday night. Below, split into 2 sections, is the headline item on page 1 of today’s copy of The Australian which carried the headline “Legal row with IBM looms as PM counts cost of census debacle”

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

Census debacle

[Note: To fit the screen in a readable format, I have split this article into 2 sections.]

In my last posting I pointed out that it is a good idea to “Test everything and only keep what is good.” The first thing to test here is the claim that there was a Denial of Service attack.

  1. Remember, John Howard claimed that he had “irrefutable proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.”

  2. John Howard also claimed to a “Sound economic manager” of the national economy, but in reality he was propping up the federal budget by unlawfully depriving welfare recipients of their constitutional right to a welfare benefit. [Breachgate]

  3. The moral off the above well-known facts is that  POLITICIANS LIE to hide the truth; consequently the Denial of Service attack claims by Prime Minister Turnbull should be taken with the same degree of caution as the “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” claims, i.e. do not take them at face value.

  4. Was the alleged “Denial of Service Attack” in reality in a stress-test-census-driven failure of the Coalition’s technically idiotic “Last mile copper wire” broadband policy? Check out these so-called real-world “broadband” speeds:

  5. Speedtest 5Speedtest 222

Anyone familiar with the demands imposed upon Australia’s copper wire broadband network by the census would have known that a system collapse was highly likely with speeds like that. However, cop this speed test reading:4Kbits

David Kalisch, the chief of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, is paid $705,000 a year and so he probably lives in a suburb where 100Mbits/sec over optic fibre is the norm.

If so, this may have given him the false perception that all Australians had access to high speed broadband. If he had known about the real-world performance of Australia’s badly degraded broadband network, would he have allowed the census to be conducted on-line? The answer to that question is a matter for an inquiry to consider in some detail.

Note: BEFORE the 2013 federal election, Australia had the world’s 30th fastest average internet access speed. However, before last month’s federal election, after 3 more years of “Last-mile-copper-wire”, we have dropped to 60th place. “Last mile copper wire” may have been a great political slogan, but in the real world, the reality is an absolute fiasco, a matter of fact which leads me to my 2nd point in this posting:.

Point #2: Centrelink’s very real ‘Denial of Service Attacks”.

The following text comes from page 19 of the Hansard record of a COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE held on 3rd June 2015. On my honour as a Christian, I swear that the following text about Centrelink’s Denial of service attacks on welfare recipients is the truth as is recorded in those minutes:

Ms Campbell: For answering a call?

 Senator CAMERON: Yes, the KPI ones.

 Ms Campbell: On average, the longest?

 Senator CAMERON: Yes. Is it welfare?

 Mr Tidswell: We obviously have a number of different lines. There will be wait times above the 16 minutes wait times.

[An understatement: some people have experienced a 2-hour wait and I have videoed a 50-minute wait!]

 Senator CAMERON: Why don’t you take that on notice? I am happy with what the minister has put to me.

 Senator Payne: Thank you.

Senator CAMERON: We will do that sample. I might come back outside estimates or later today and say, ‘Can you have a look at these specific ones?’ That is okay. You have got 12.9 million abandoned calls and 13.7 million blocked calls; that is, about 31.7 per cent of total calls are blocked. I have not been out there. Have you got a control room?

[Did you get that? 31.7% of customer calls blocked by Centrelink!]

 Mr Tidswell: Yes, Senator.

 Senator CAMERON: I should come and have a look at it. It has been described to me in layperson’s terms as a big pipe. The calls come in through this big pipe and sometimes the pipe gets overloaded, so you restrict the pipe. And what can’t get in goes to a ‘call engaged’ signal. Is that correct?

 Mr Tidswell: One of the things we have done over some years is attempt to restrict the amount of call blocking, which effectively means the customer will receive an engaged signal over some time. We have reduced that by about 66 per cent over the last few years deliberately so that people can get the choice to enter into that IVR and get information about the service they might need.

In that sense what happens is that at certain points—say, at the end of the day—we have to clear the queues out. It is no different, in a sense, from running a club or a bouncer letting people come in to that environment. You can only let a certain number of people in to that environment to protect the telephone infrastructure and to make sure that you handle the workload in a suitable fashion; otherwise we would be working every day of the week 24/7. So we try to restrict it very much to a demand situation where we do it, or to protect our infrastructure. The easiest way to fix wait times is to introduce more engaged signals. Previously, that is what we did. With respect to the level of blocking previously, there were far more blocked calls than we ever answered in any given year.

[My comment:]

It is important to keep in mind the fact that Centrelink prosecutes up to 14 people per day for not reporting their income, but this tidbit from Hansard reveals that Centrelink actively runs a Denial of Service program that blocks up to 31.7% of calls for the express purpose of preventing its computer system from going into melt-down.

Quite clearly, if the ISIS system used to service 7.3 million Australians on welfare is not up to speed and capable of servicing less than 1/3rd of of Australia’s population, what made David Kalisch think that the ABS system was up to the task of servicing the entire nation of 24 million people?

In 14.6 of the Home Insulation Program royal commission report, Commissioner Hanger had some very tough words for senior public servants who made some very bad assumptions without carefully checking the facts. In 14.6.10 and 14.6.11  of his report he said:

14.6.10 it is also said: Responsive advice is frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely. The advice should be evidence-based, well argued and creative, anticipate issues and appreciate the underlying intent of government policy. Responsive advice is also forthright and direct and does not withhold or gloss over important known facts or ‘bad news’.

 14.6.11 It is a shame that those entrusted with the implementation of the HIP did not adhere to these principles.

When you think about it, these findings apply equally to both the census debacle and the fact that the Department of Human services have concealed for over 30-years the fact that the ISIS software system, i.e. the IBM 204 software package, was NEVER fit for the intended purpose and as a consequence, billions of dollars in overpayments that the DHS are not legally allowed to recover, are currently being recovered by fraudulent means.

That last point is not hype, as I shall demonstrate in my next posting.

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




Posted in Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 29: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Social Justice Issues for Australian Christians.

Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity pose serious social justice ethical issues for all Australian Christians who are, according to the tenets of their faith, required to “Speak up and defend the poor and see that justice is done.” (Proverbs chapter 31: verses 8 and 9).

For those unfamiliar with the Bible, it contains over 2,000 references to the poor and the need for Christians to help the poor. In fact, the only time that Jesus read from the Old Testament scriptures, he read a passage from Isaiah, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me to bring good news to the poor, and to set the captives free.” Christians who ignore the plight of the poor, actually deny their faith and  the social justice message that Jesus constantly taught, both in word and in deed.

[Note:- The short link URL for this posting is:     ]

The assumption that Australia is a fair and just society and that our nation’s national leaders are people of integrity has taken a massive reality-check pounding over the last 3 or 4 months. In addition to the Chilcot Report which makes it quite clear that in 2002-03, Prime Minister John Howard was not telling the truth when he claimed to have “irrefutable proof” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the following issues highlight more recent Crimes against Humanity perpetrated by the Australian Government:

1.    On April 25th, the Full Bench of the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court ruled [in Case SC1497] that the PNG and Australia had violated  both the PNG constitution and fundamental human rights that are protected by international conventions. The Court ruled that “Both the Australian and Papua New Guinea governments shall forthwith take all steps necessary to cease and prevent the continued unconstitutional and illegal detention of the asylum seekers or transferees at the relocation centre on Manus Island and the continued breach of the asylum seekers or transferees constitutional and human rights.” In his findings, Justice Terrance Higgins stated that “Treating those required to remain in the relocation centre as prisoners irrespective of their circumstances or status… is to offend against their rights and freedoms.”

2.    An issue withheld by the mass media during the federal election campaign is the fact that the International Criminal Court of Justice (ICC) currently has 3 cases before it in which it is alleged that that the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, Attorney-General George Brandis, and the former Immigration Minister, now Treasurer, Scott Morrison, have committed Crimes against Humanity. ICC cases can be glacially slow and long, with the investigation of the former Bosnian President, Radovan Karadzic, taking 20 years before the ICC handed down a “Guilty” verdict and imposed a 40-year jail sentence.

3.    On 1st July 2016, an amendment to Section 42A of the Social Security (Administration) Act was given “Royal Assent”. This amendment is unconstitutional and violates the civil rights of millions of Australians. Unreported by the Department of Human Services, and secretly classified as “confidential” and “irrelevant”, the fatalities caused by this law may [soon?] be the subject of a United Nations Human Rights Commission inquiry.

For more detailed information about the PNG Supreme Court decision and the cases currently before the International Criminal Court of Justice, check out for more details.

[NOTE: As a Christian, I subscribe to the biblical principle that people should “test everything and only keep what is good.” No-one reading my postings should take what I write at face value but should check out ALL of my claims.  For a PDF copy of the PNG Supreme Court’s findings, Google the search phrase on the next line. Click on it and the court’s findings should automatically download to your computer:]

papua new guinea supreme court sc1497

Over the last 6 years I written at length about “Breachgate”, Australia’s unconstitutional welfare penalties law,  that may have been responsible for an unknown number of fatalities that may be close to, or even exceed, 100,000 in number. In the JPEG image below are details of a recent amendment to the “Breachgate” law. Any person faced with a “No show” penalty  should download this JPG, along with the comments above, and use the information as the basis for a civil rights/human rights violation appeal, not to Centrelink, but to the Australian Human Rights Commission AND to the United Nations Human rights Commission. Governor-General Gosgrove could eventually face Crimes against Humanity charges for having given “Royal Assent” to this law on 1st July 2016.

If a steady stream of breached welfare recipients file complaints, the lethally slow reaction time of the UNHRC may be “actioned” sooner rather than “eventually”. Such urgency is vital as it may help to prevent more unnecessary welfare penalties triggered fatalities.


Right click on the “Australia’s Deadly Holocaust law” JPEG image below and print it out. Verify the veracity of the 3 clips from the s42A amendment by downloading a copy of the amendment from:;query%3DId%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr5523%22;rec=0

Once you have done that, place it on your church notice board where all Centrelink clients in your congregation can read it.

Holocaust Law 4a

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

Posted in Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 28: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity: The High Court’s Keating Decision and the refusal of the Federal Police to investigate politicians

The refusal of the Australian Federal Police to investigate federal politicians who may have committed crimes against humanity, or simply ripped us taxpayers off, looks extremely ‘suss’ when compared with The High Court’s Keating Decision. Check this out and pay special attention to the answers to Questions 1, 3 and 4.

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

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Keating [2013] HCA 20

8 May 2013 M5/2013

[Check it out at:  ]


  1. The questions in the stated case dated 19 December 2012 be answered as follows:

 Question 1:  Does section 66A of the Administration Act create a duty, from 20 March 2000, for the purposes of section 4.3(b) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, such that a failure to inform the Department of the occurrence of an event or a change of circumstances as required by section 66A of the Administration Act amounts to “engaging in conduct” for the purposes of section 135.2(1)(a) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code?

Answer:  No.

Question 2″  If yes to Question 1, is section 66A of the Administration Act invalid, insofar as it has retrospective effect, because it infringes the separation of judicial and legislative powers mandated by the Constitution?

 Answer: Does not arise.

 Question 3: Did the notices issued to the defendant, as identified in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the stated case, or any of them, create a duty for the purposes of section 4.3(b) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, such that a failure to perform the act or acts required by the notice or notices amounts to “engaging in conduct” for the purposes of section 135.2(1)(a) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code?

Answer: The notices issued to the defendant, as identified in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the stated case, were, in each case, capable of creating a duty for the purposes of s 4.3(b) of the Code such that a failure to perform the act or acts required by the notice or notices amounts to “engaging in conduct” for the purposes of s 135.2(1)(a) of the Code.


In Question 1, the High Court booted out a retrospective law dating back to March 20, 2000 that was intended to validate some 15,000 convictions fro a non-existent crime. Having accidentally wiped it off the books, on August 4th 2011, the Australian Federal parliament tried to “fix” this problem by backdating the law 11 years. The High Court judges turfed out the retro’ law with this statement in paragraph 46 of their findings:


  • On the Director’s construction, s 66A creates a statutory fiction[32] with the effect of attaching criminal liability to the defendant for her failure to advise the Department of an event within 14 days of its occurrence. This is so notwithstanding that at the time of the failure she was not required by law to inform the Department of the event (putting to one side receipt of any information notice) and that the duty is incapable of discharge.


 The retro law passed by the Gillard Government, with the support of the Liberal-national Coalition was a “statutory fiction”, i.e. it was not legally valid, and so the High Court squashed it.

The answer in Question 4 is extremely interesting because the High Court ruled that “acts of omission”, i.e. no doing something when you should, are a crime under section 135.2(1)(a) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code?

What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. The refusal of the AFP to apply s. 4.3 (b)  and s. 135. (2) (1) (a)  to rorting federal politicians is  a case of extremely partisan [ostensible] bias. Federal Agent Pearce’s letter of 7th July 2004 and Federal Agent Pearce’s email of 14 September 2009, are valid grounds for an appeal on the basis of Apprehended Bias and Manifest Ostensible Bias.

Trish Draper's confession: "We all make mistakes."

Perksgate unrestricted: The Federal Police response to Trish Draper’s apparent violation of section 135 (2) (1) (a) is absolutely astounding, for it is has apparently been Standard Operating Procedure for many years now.

Cl;assification: Confidential The 7-07-2004 AFP refusal to investigate.

This letter was classified confidential in November 2005 by the Senate’s LEGCON Committee, possibly to conceal a ‘dirty deal’ between the AFP and Howard Government.

AFP refusal to investigate Perksgate email

It is my belief that the principle of “Equality before the Law” means that the refusal; of the Federal Police to investigate rorting by politicians, or the Crimes against humanity implicit in the Howard Goverment’s illegal enforcement of “Performance Indicator Targets” creates BIAS in Australia’s JUSTICE SYSTEM. It is also my belief that this BIAS undermines criminal prosecutions because anyone charged with a criminal offence can legitimately claim to have been treated to have been treated differently from politicians

These are views that I am presenting to both DDP lawyers and criminal law defence lawyers and it only takes 1 successful appeal and the members of parliament involved in the 2007 “Perksgate” rip-off that was the basis of ANAO Report #3 in 2009, could face fraud charges as could all other politicians who made the “mistake” of rorting the parliamentary entitlements fund, e.g. Tony Abbott, who spent $9,400 of taxpayers money promoting his book “Battlelines.” Like Trish Draper, at this point in time, all politicians have to do is claim “I made a mistake” and repay the money and they are not prosecuted.

With the unreported Breachgate and Waivergate death toll possibly close to, or even over the 100,000 mark, the bias of the Federal Police is absolutely staggering. Please check out these videos if you have not seen them yet:

Chilcot Report Issues:

Waivergate – Part 1:

Waivergate – Part 2:

Waivergate – Part 3:

BURN NOTICE:The others:

  1. The Federal Government, relying on Centrelink’s computer system, has been sending letters to people who have been dead for 20 years or more.

  1. Complaints against Centrelink rise





Posted in Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Australia’s other “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity: The Chilcot Report on the unauthortized invasion of Iraq.

Australia’s other “irrelevant”

Crimes against Humanity.

[The short link URL for this posting is:  ]

The invasion of Iraq was never ever justified as these Pearls of Truth  from the English Parliament’s July 6th 2016 Iraq Inquiry, i.e. the Chilcot ReportExecutive Summary, make very, very clear:

573. …the [US] Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure.

 574. The evidence in Section 4.4 shows that, after the invasion, the UK Government, including the intelligence community, was reluctant to admit, and to recognise publicly, the mounting evidence that there had been failings in the UK’s pre-conflict collection, validation, analysis and presentation of intelligence on Iraq’s WMD.

576.  Almost immediately after the start of the invasion, UK Ministers and officials sought to lower public expectations of immediate or significant finds of WMD in Iraq.

 The lack of evidence to support pre-conflict claims about Iraq’s WMD challenged the credibility of the Government and the intelligence community, and the legitimacy of the war.

  1. The Government and the intelligence community were both concerned about the consequences of the presentational aspects of their pre-war assessments being discredited.

  1. Although the UK expected to be involved in Iraq for a lengthy period after the conflict, the Government was unprepared for the role in which the UK found itself from April 2003. Much of what went wrong stemmed from that lack of preparation.

  1. In any undertaking of this kind, certain fundamental elements are of vital importance:

  • the best possible appreciation of the theatre of operations, including the political, cultural and ethnic background, and the state of society, the economy and infrastructure;

  • a hard-headed assessment of risks;

  • objectives which are realistic within that context, and if necessary limited – rather than idealistic and based on optimistic assumptions; and

  • allocation of the resources necessary for the task – both military and civil.

  1. All of these elements were lacking in the UK’s approach to its role inpost-conflict Iraq.

  1. Ground truth is vital. Over-optimistic assessments lead to bad decisions. Senior decision-makers – Ministers, Chiefs of Staff, senior officials – must have a flow of accurate and frank reporting.

A “can do” attitude is laudably ingrained in the UK Armed Forces – a determination to get on with the job, however difficult the circumstances – but this can prevent ground truth from reaching senior ears.

 At times in Iraq, the bearers of bad tidings were not heard.

On several occasions, decision-makers visiting Iraq (including the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chief of the General Staff) found the situation on the ground to be much worse than had been reported to them.

Effective audit mechanisms need to be used to counter optimism bias,whether through changes in the culture of reporting, use of multiple channels of information – internal and external – or use of visits.

  1. “…In relation to Iraq, the risks involved in the parallel deployment of two enduring medium scale operations were not examined with sufficient rigour and challenge.

We were deceived, and as a consequence:

  1. About 250,000 people, mostly civilians are dead, i.e. the ‘collateral damage so beloved of cowboy commanders who see the destruction of the enemy but fail to see the deaths of innocent men, women and children;

  2. Islamic State poses a deadly threat to anyone, anywhere in the world;

  3. The politicians responsible for the deaths of a quarter of a million people are not willing to accept accountability for what I consider to be Crimes against Humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

  4. The decision as to whether or not President George Bush II(USA),Prime Minister Tony Blair (Britain), and Prime minister John Howard (Australia) should face criminal charges for the unauthorized invasion of Iraq is a matter for the United Nations who, in deciding, should look solely at the massive, constantly rising death toll from what was a politically motivated jingoistic act of military adventurism.

Australian Citizens take note:

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull had a powerful vested interest in holding the federal election on July 2nd, i.e. 4 days BEFORE the release of the Chilcot Report. Had he waited until the election was due in September, minor parties and independent candidates would have had a field day pointing out the macabre horrors and massive blunders being revealed in the Chilcot Report.

John Howard lied about having “irrefutable evidence” that Iraq had WMD’s and;


a quarter of million people, including some of us Aussies, have died because of those politically motivated lies.

These lies parallel the official viewpoint of Australia’s establishment, i.e. the Parliament, the Public Service, the police, the mass media, and even some individuals in the legal professions, that saving money is far more important than saving the lives of welfare recipients.

For this reason, I have linked the Chilcot Report to the Emcott Report which deals with Australia’s unreported, secretly classified, “irrelevant” welfare penalties murders.

  1. Readers of this posting, especially Centrelink clients, such as Uni’ ot TAFE students, people on pensions, part-time workers on low incomes, and (soon to be)  unemployed people, should check out these 4 videos:

  2. CHILCOT REPORT ISSUES (and John Howard’s other lethal lies)


  4. Waivergate – Part 1

    Waivergate – Part 2

    Waivergate – Part 3

Ronald Medlicott.

(A Christian lay advocate for justice in Australia.)

Posted in Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

2016 Federal Election: THE PETER PRINCIPLE – We need more patriots, and far fewer politicians, to fix the mess created by 20 years of Liberal and Labour incompetence.

The Peter Principle is very simple – People get promoted to their level of incompetence. In Australia we have done this at every federal election for the last 20 years, which explains why we now need patriots, not politicians running the country.

[Note: The short link URL for this post is:   ]

THE PETER PRINCIPLE: Do a good job and you get promoted to a position with more authority and responsibility, but the consequences of bad decisions are much worse when a person makes a decision that is beyond their level of competence to comprehend and deal with. Two well known examples of the Peter Principle are:

Appointing Peter Garrett as the Minister for Environment.

That seems like a safe, harmless job but 4 young men wound up dead, a young woman suffered horrific burns, and 200 homes around Australia caught fire.

  • Appointing Tony Abbott as Prime Minister.

Within 100 days he had trashed and destroyed Australia’s 100-year-old car industry, nearly destroyed what is left of Australia’s canning industry, and by stalling on defence contracts, put hundreds of people out of work in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, a region where unemployment runs as high as 15% of the population in some suburbs. pg 5 1250 jobs dead

  1. The article above was published on page 5 of the Advertiser on January 29th 2016. Below are the grim statistics published on page 14 of The Sunday Mail on 13th March 2016.
  2. NOTE: The last time unemployment in Australia was this bad, John Howard was Prime Minister and Tony Abbott was the Employment Minister.AA Unemployed
  3. Holden’s manufacturing plant at Elizabeth is in the City of Playford where unemployment fluctuates between 12 -15% because full-time permanent jobs are very scarce in this region.
  4. In fact, when it comes to employment, South Australia is the nation’s  “Basket Case” state, especially amongst workers over the age of 40. Here is another page 1 article from The Sunday Mail on May 22nd 2016:p1 wAGE Discrimination

P14 DOME statistics

Seeking a second shot at running the nation into the bog, the Liberal Party began the election campaign with the empty promise that:

“Malcom Turnbull expects to create 200,000 jobs in 2017.”

If he expects to do it in 2017, why didn’t he do it in 2016?

Oh! Maybe he “expected” to create 200,000 jobs in 2016, but it did not happen.

What guarantee is there that 200,000 full-time permanent jobs will be created in 2017 if Malcolm Turnbull is re-elected as Prime Minister? Realistically, ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH because it is employers who employ, not politicians seeking to scramble back into a job that costs taxpayers’ about $7.5 MILLION PER POLITICIAN PER YEAR, mostly in privileges and perks rather than the $200,000 – $500,000 annual salary. (How would you like a $225,000 a year printing allowance or $1,092 to sleep in your spouse’s home in Canberra when the parliament is in session?) Having killed off a multi-billion car industry in Playford, cop the small change $24million solution which does nothing, other than employ trainers, who train people for non-existent jobs!

P1 Jobs No Silver Bullet

The Peter Principle can be found in Malcolm Turnbull’s recent federal budget which is scaring the living daylight out the university students, and with good reason. In 1996 when John Howard was elected Prime Minister, university education was free, so check this out:

The independent Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) projects the total value of the student loans program will grow from around $60 billion now to $180 billion by 2026 – a surge it attributes largely to the Coalition’s policy to allow universities to set their own fees.

What happened? Today university and TAFE students struggle under a massive burden of $60 BILLION in HECS fees. Re-elect the Liberal Party to run the country and it will blow out to $180 BILLION. (a 560% increase) How many parents want their children to grown up, go to university and be hit with a HECS fee of hundreds of thousands of dollars that they will spend the rest of lives paying off? ARE YOU THAT MEAN TO YOUR KIDS?

Remember, until 1996, university education was free.

PANDEMIC: HECS fees assume that our children or grand children will survive the next pandemic.

Check out this:

The 1918 -19 Flu pandemic wiped out 10% of the entire world population, i.e. 1 person in 10 died and the flow-on consequence for the survivors was that their life expectancy dropped by an average of 12 years.

The recent budget changes will drive many people out of the medical system, e.g. welfare recipients such as pensioners, people with disabilities, tertiary students, and unemployed people, along with many low-income families. If you subsist on $40 a day, can you afford a $20 co-payment to see a doctor or $100 for an X-ray? Collectively, people in these categories make up a massive 37.4% of the population and the recent Medicare white-anting will hit low-income families very hard. too hard in fact..

Early detection is the key to stopping a pandemic but the exclusion of a third of the population from the medical system due to irresponsible and recklessly dangerous, ill-considered penny-pinching by Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison could be the key to a pandemic that in a matter of weeks could affect millions and kill unnumbered thousands.

The recent federal budget is NOT sound economic management -rather it is a recycled version of the Rudd Government’s ill-fated Home Insulation Program.

Why is this so?

Both the Home Insulation program and the recent federal budget share a common focus, money instead of public safety.

The criticisms leveled by the Queensland Coroner, Michael Barnes, about the Rudd Government being focused upon stimulating the economy with thinking about the real-world impact of the Home Improvement Program is equally valid for the recent federal budget which ignores the human impact, both in the short-term and in the longer term.

We need new people in the federal parliament, if only to avoid  self-serving politicians who soak up every dubious or up-front rip-off “entitlement” they can lay their hands on. Check out the stark contrast in these 2 news article from The Sunday Mail on 22nd March 2016:

p4 Aged homeless

Aged pensioners homeless – how do the Canberra Brigade cope with that?


P18 Double Dip MPs

Note that both Liberal and Labour politicians are exploiting overly generous “entitlements whilst aged pensioners are homeless. Please, check out the following statement:

“A young, homeless couple and their dog have been found dead in their car, apparently killed by a gas heater they were using to keep warm. Police say the 27-year-old man and 24-year-old woman, both from Ballarat and believed to have been living in the car, were using a butane gas heater to keep the chill away when they died.”

Yesterday, I took my 93 year-old mother to vote and also voted whil;st at the polling booth. Many of the names and political parties on the ballot papers were totally unknown to me and so I asked myself why this is so?

The current system favours the established parties, as grossly incompetent as they are, whilst candidates from smaller political parties, and independent candidates, may be far more patriotic in outlook and possibly even far more more competent because they are less blinded by ideology that politicians from the ‘established’ parties, they are over-looked.


A double dissolution of parliament was unnecessary. in fact, the election could have been delayed until early November. So why a double dissolution now?

One reason is that the car industry will start shedding jobs in September and those job losses are mega-bad news for the Liberal Party and equally bad news for the ALP which has no solution as to how to get these people back into the workforce once the car industry shuts down.

  1. Things will only get worse, not better, so an early election is a way of avoiding the fall-out from the AUB, i.e. the Abbott Unemployment 4 Cost 2 shut GMH
  2. The new voting massively favours both the Liberal-National Coalition and the ALP and effectively ensures that in the future, one or the other will have total control of the parliament. That is a very dangerous situation as the bloody-minded arrogance of Tony Abbott and members of his government demonstrated all to clearly with the human rights violating  “People have a right to bigots” law and the failed attempt to pass another law that would have dangerously deprived hundreds of thousands of young Australians of their constitutional right to a survival allowance when unemployed.


If voters take advantage of the new voting rules and boycott both Liberal-National Coalition parties and the ALP and VOTE BELOW THE LINE FOR PATRIOTS the scheme spectacularly backfires on Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten.

Australia needs a patriot vote rather than a donkey vote.

When voting in this election, voters need to heed the advice given by Commissioner Ian Hanger in 14.6.7 and 14.6.8 of his royal commission report, i.e. think outside the box, look at the big picture and consider the long-term implications. Ask yourselves this:

  1. Do we really want our children struggling with a $560 billion HECS debt?

  2. Are you willing to risk shutting a third of the population out of the health system and increase the risk of a dangerous pandemic?

If the answer to those questions is NO, consider a PATRIOT VOTE for minor parties and independent candidates ahead of a traditional vote or a DONKEY VOTE.

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for justice in Australia.




Posted in Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment