Part 52F. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Glimpses of how Genocide works in Australia.

This posting is intended to provide insight into why millions of unsuspecting welfare recipients can be terrorized, exploited, defrauded and randomly murdered by unconstitutionally elected parliaments that have created genocidal laws.

NOTE: The short link for this posting is:  :  https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1fn

GLIMPSE #1 – The Mindset of Centrelink’s Bureaucrats.

The following statements were made by Kathryn Campbell, the former Secretary (CEO) of the Department of Human Services in a 2015 speech titled DHS service delivery reform a success, all things considered”

[1] “The auditor-general’s report suggests the relevant KPI — an average waiting time of 16 minutes or less — is setting a low bar compared to other DHS telephone lines and other large Australian call centres. A simple average wait time is also not very meaningful, compared to the more complex KPIs used by other call centres.

[MY COMMENT: Waiting one or two hours to get through to Centrelink is extremely meaningful to those waiting but was quite clearly not very meaningful to Secretary Campbell, who never has to wait that long when phoning her staff.]

[2] “I came from an enemy location — the Department of Finance … so I wasn’t seen to be doing any of the ‘takeover’ business. But even today I’m sure if you discussed it with some of our staff, they would say one took over the other.”

[MY COMMENT: “I came from an enemy location…” Secretary Campbell’s mind was clearly focused upon internal bureaucratic politics and not on the life-saving function of her job, i.e. stopping vulnerable Australians from slipping through the welfare safety net and possibly dying as a result.

[3] “We believe that we have continued to deliver positive outcomes for both customers and our staff during this period, and that it was essential to do service delivery reform so that we would continue to be able to do that,”

[MY COMMENT: the civil rights of millions of vulnerable people have been violated and in February 2017, Secretary Campbell was unable to either confirm or deny a death toll that may exceed 100,000.

[4] “We do a lot of work on claims that are never granted, So people will chance their arm, try their luck. … I think there might be some ways that we could probably give them the bad news earlier, that they haven’t met one of those eligibility thresholds, but we are required to process claims that are submitted under the legislation.”

[MY COMMENT: “We do a lot of work on claims that are never granted.” It is very obvious that Secretary Campbell believed that her job was to save money, not the lives of very vulnerable people who, for a variety of reasons, are at risk because they lack adequate means to support themselves, e.g. the Liberal party destroying the national car manufacturing industry and having no immediate jobs to replace the jobs destroyed.

Check out this citizens-rights violating statement: “we could probably give them the bad news earlier.” It is glaringly obvious that Secretary Campbell was totally unaware of the binding High Court decision in ASIC v Hellicar that once a Centrelink decision was challenged by a welfare recipient, that Centrelink had to take the issue to court and get a court determination of the facts before any further action could be taken on the withholding of welfare payments.

ASIC v Hellicar:

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/17.html

At paragraph 141 to 143:

And insofar as the duty was said to stem from a proposition “that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth, in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred”, that premise is false for at least two reasons.

  1. First, the proposition ignores that even a criminal trial “is not, and does not purport to be, an examination and assessment of all the information and evidence that exists, bearing upon the question of guilt or innocence”. Each side in a criminal trial “is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue, the evidence which it or he will call, and what questions whether in chief or in cross-examination shall be asked; always, of course, subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility”. Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent requirements.
  2. Second, the proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory agency relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require the regulatory agency to make some final judgment about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.

No court decision, then no legally valid decision by Secretary Campbell and her 25,000 minions.

GLIMPSE #2 – THE ROLE OF THE MASS MEDIA

The double standards of the mass media, especially News Corporation newspapers are beyond belief:

Treasurer for sale

Joe Hockey sued Fairfax Media for a 3-word tweet, “Treasurer for sale” and won $200,000 in compensation, not for the news item above which the Federal Court agreed was fair and accurate comment but for the 3-word tweet that promoted this news article.

Now, keeping in mind that until a court decides the merit of any decision to withhold a welfare payment, which is a constitutional right, Centrelink cannot make any legally valid decision in the matter, check out these two News Corporation articles:

Bludgers

“No show, no pay” violates t Genocide and Crimes against Humanity provisions in articles 6 and 7 of the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute, a law that has applied to the Commonwealth of Australia since about July 2002.

News Ltd Dole cheats

In addition to violating the genocide and crimes against humanity provisions in the Rome Statute of the International criminal Court, this news article, like the 1st article, also violates South Australia’s criminal defamation law:

257—Criminal defamation
(1) A person who, without lawful excuse, publishes defamatory matter concerning another living person—
(a) knowing the matter to be false or being recklessly indifferent as to whether the matter is true or false; and
(b) intending to cause serious harm, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether the publication of the defamatory matter will cause serious harm, to a person (whether the person defamed or not),
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

Civil action is also possible if enough welfare recipients decide to sue newspapers for defamation and violation of civil rights, a fact made quite clear by the June 2017 Manus Island class action:

Manus 70 million compo

When paid out in June 2017, this was the largest every class action payout. However, with the Civil Rights of millions of people having been violated and Secretary Campbell unable to either confirm or deny a secretly classified, officially “irrelevant'” death toll that, after decades of recklessly ignoring these fatalities, may now be somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000, the $70 million may be ‘small change” once welfare recipients follow the Manus Island lead and sue the Commonwealth and mass media supporters of genocide and crimes against humanity.

OOPS! – Scott Morrison said:

‘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*’ 

Scott Morrison: Migration & Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylums Legacy caseload) Bill 2014 – Debate 25-9-2014

Mr. Morrison’s comment cost us taxpayers $90 MILLION in compensation for a decision made by the Papua-New Guinea Supreme Court on the 25th April, 2016. Both the Australian and New Guinea governments had violated the human rights of the Manus Island detainees and had the case gone to court, we taxpayers could have been hit with a much larger bill for Scott Morrison’s bad judgement.

In the meantime, ALTHOUGH DOING SO MAY BE USELESS, my advice to victims of Centrelink’s randomly lethal criminal abuses of power remains the same:

CALL THE COPS!

Policeman

Austrack Comm Stevens

The tracking slip above was for my Express Post letter to the South Australian Police commissioner, Grant Stevens.

Austrack Coroner

The tracking slip above was for my Express Post letter to the South Australian Coroner, Mark Johns.

 

At this time, neither Commissioner Stevens nor Coroner Johns has contacted me for details of deaths that I am aware of. Until sufficient pressure by victims of Centrelink’s ‘skip due process of law’, which can be randomly lethal, are willing to call the cops, no police force in Australia is likely to act until intense pressure to do something is applied. Until that happens, the status quo will apply, i.e. every police force in Australia probably just stonewall and, by doing nothing, help to conceal these State Sanctioned Crimes against Humanity.

Ron Medlicott. Registered teacher and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate

Advertisements
Posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 52E. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. The 4 statutory declarations with the large text see ease of reading by mobile phone users.

The 4 statutory declarations that South Australia’s Police Commissioner and State Coroner are studiously ignoring, are reprinted with large text under each image for reading on mobile phones.

The short link URL to this posting:   https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1fe

The Brandis ConfessionTHE TEXT:

The following Matters of Fact are independently verifiable truths.

1 On January 27th 2008, Mr. Ian Ward, an Aboriginal elder died from heatstroke after being transported from Laverton to Kalgoorlie in the back of a van in which the air conditioning was either faulty or not working. In May 2011, the State of Western Australia, Department of Corrective Services, pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that persons who were not employees were not exposed to hazards and, by that failure, causing the death of Mr. Ian Ward. On July 7th 2011, in the Kalgoorlie Magistrates Court, the Department of Corrective Services was fined $2850,000 for its role in the death of Mr. Ian Ward.

 2 Custodial Officers were prosecuted, Graham Kenneth Powell, KA324/11 on 7th September 2011, and Nina Mary Stokoe, KA325/11 on 5th October 2011. Both pleaded Guilty to the charge of “Being an employee failed to take reasonable care to avoid adversely affecting the safety or health of any other person through an act or omission at work and by that contravention caused the death of, or serious harm to Ian Ward.” On 12th August 2011 G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd (ACN 050 069 255) was prosecuted, KA327/11 and pleaded Guilty to “Being an employer, failed so far as was practical , to ensure that the safety or health of a person not being its employee, was not adversely affected wholly or in part as a result of any hazard that arose from or was increased by the system of work that had been or was being operated by the accused, and by that contravention caused the death of, or serious harm, to Ian Ward”.

 On 20th February 2017, Senator George Brandis made the following statements during the broadcast of an Australian Broadcasting Commission program, #Qand A. “Now, this system involves a review of potentially millions of transfer payments, so of course there will be mistakes made, and I agree with what Piers Ackermann said, that when mistakes are made and they have terrible human consequences, then off course that’s a tragedy. But we do have to have appropriate compliance measures and the idea of data matching, introduced by Hawke and the idea of automated letters being sent to people when there is a discrepancy evident from the data-matching between the ATO data and the Centrelink data; it was introduced by you, is not a bad system. The methodology that has been used by this government is the same methodology that we inherited from you.”

 On 21st February 2017, the Statement of Facts & Issues was lodged for AAT case 5334 of 2016, 2nd appeal. An issue raised was the unreported, classified death toll caused by unconstitutional welfare penalties, i.e. an estimated a cumulative death toll of approximately 100,000, or even higher. Rather than contest details of the “irrelevant’ deaths, the Department of Social Services issued a proffer, which was accepted, that reinstated the Applicant’s disability pension. Consequently, at this point in time, the precise death toll caused by unconstitutional tortious conduct actions remains undisclosed.

And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Oaths Act 1936.

s

Case Law and the “approriate compliance measures’ deaths:

THE TEXT:

The following Matters of Fact are independently verifiable truths.

 At paragraph 6 of Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1981] HCA 26, (5 June 1981), Chief Justice Gibbs ruled: It is an elementary and fundamental principle that the object of the court, in interpreting a statute, “is to see what is the intention expressed by the words used”: River Wear Commissioners versus Adamson (in)1877 at paragraph 763. It is only by considering the meaning of the words used by the legislature that the court can ascertain its intention. And it is not unduly pedantic to begin with the assumption that words mean what they say…”

 On the 24th August 2012, at paragraph 11 in Patel versus the Queen, HCA 29, Chief Justice French and Justices, Hayne, Kiefel and Bell ruled that: “Under the Criminal Code, a person who causes the death of another is deemed to have killed that other person (section 293). A person who unlawfully kills another in circumstances which do not constitute murder is guilty of manslaughter (section 303). A person who kills another does so unlawfully unless the killing is authorised, justified or excused by law (section 291). At paragraph 18, these judges also ruled: Criminal responsibility therefore attaches only if there has been “criminal” or “gross” negligence.  In Bateman, Hewart LCJ said that whatever epithet be used, the standard of conduct must go beyond that relevant to a matter of compensation; it must be such as to show such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and to be conduct deserving punishment.  In Nydam v The Queen, the requisite standard was said to involve “such a great falling short of the standard of care which a reasonable man would have exercised and which involved such a high risk that death or grievous bodily harm would follow that the doing of the act merited criminal punishment.”

 On 20th February 2017, Senator George Brandis made the following statements during the broadcast of an Australian Broadcasting Commission program, #Qand A. “Now, this system involves a review of potentially millions of transfer payments, so of course there will be mistakes made, and I agree with what Piers Ackermann said, that when mistakes are made and they have terrible human consequences, then off course that’s a tragedy. But we do have to have appropriate compliance measures and the idea of data matching, introduced by Hawke and the idea of automated letters being sent to people when there is a discrepancy evident from the data-matching between the ATO data and the Centrelink data; it was introduced by you, is not a bad system. The methodology that has been used by this government is the same methodology that we inherited from you.”

 On 21st February 2017, the Statement of Facts & Issues was lodged for AAT case 5334 of 2016, 2nd appeal. An issue raised was the unreported, classified death toll caused by unconstitutional welfare penalties, i.e. an estimated a cumulative death toll of approximately 100,000, or even higher. This statement was not challenged at that time.

3 months later, on the 18th May 2017, the Secretary of the Department of Human Services, Kathryn Campbell, told the Community Affairs Reference Committee, “It is quite difficult if we are not informed that a person has died. We work very diligently with state and territory governments to ensure that we are capturing information about deaths. But, sadly, there are so many recipients in the systems it is the case that sometimes we are writing to people who are no longer alive.” ”. Consequently, at this point in time, the precise scale of the unlawful death toll caused by recklessly dangerous, “compliance measures”  remains unknown to both Secretary Campbell and the Federal Parliament.

 

Case Law and Matters of Fact:

THE TEXT:

The issues raised in this declaration are ‘Matters of Fact’, here after “MoF”, that are of grave national significance and as such, require urgent
consideration by all Australian citizens and also by those lawfully appointed persons or authorities with the appropriate legal jurisdiction and/or lawful
responsibility to deal with the legal ramifications of the issues raised in the six MoF statements below.

MoF #1: Commencing with the High Court’s ruling in Re v Culleton, HCA 4, on the 3rd February 2017, numerous High Court decisions have resulted
in the dismissal or resignation from the Federal Parliament of 16 people who were constitutionally disqualified to serve as Members of the Federal
Parliament. In law, these dismissals and resignations constitute evidence of the fact that in 2016, the Australian Electoral Commission, here after the
AEC, had conducted an unconstitutional ‘Hybrid Election’ by allowing a still unknown number of disqualified people to contest this federal election.

MoF #2: On the 14th March 2002, in paragraph 51of Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj, HCA 11, Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron ruled that “A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all”. Their Honours also emphasized the fact that such jurisdictional errors are “A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.” At paragraph 53 of Bhardwaj, Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron further emphasized their rulings in paragraph 51, i.e. “As already pointed out, 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. Thus, not only is there no legal impediment under the general law to a decision-maker making such a decision but, as a matter of strict legal principle, he or she is required to do so. And that is so, regardless of s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act.”

MoF #3: The AEC does not have the constitutional authority to conduct hybrid elections. Likewise, I was one of almost 15 million Electors who cast
literally hundreds of millions of preferential ballots in the 2016 hybrid election, however none of us had the constitutional right to cast ballots in a
hybrid election. Therefore, consistent with the above Bhardwaj rulings at paragraphs 51 and 53, the AEC’s Declarations of Results for all 226
vacancies were constitutionally invalid declarations, i.e. they were/are, “in law, no decision at all.” Constitutionally, a valid Declaration of Results for the 2016 Election Writ cannot be made, and a constitutionally valid government formed, until such time as the AEC conducts a constitutionally compliant federal election.

MoF# 4: Under the leadership of Malcolm Turnbull, the unconstitutionally elected 45th Federal Parliament allegedly began violating the civil rights of as many as 20,000 people per week with unsubstantiated ‘alleged debt’ claims that lacked legal validity as no forensic audits were undertaken by appropriately qualified and certified auditors for the purpose of establishing a valid Right of Claim by objectively ensuring that Commonwealth errors, which includes possible violations of Commonwealth, State or Territory Data Protections laws, were not the cause of the alleged data mismatches.

MoF #5: On the 3rd May 2012 in ASIC v Hellicar and Ors, HCA 17, at paragraph 141 the High Court ruled that “And insofar as the duty was said to stem from a proposition “that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth, in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred”, that premise is false for at least two reasons”. At paragraph 142 the Court ruled that in criminal cases and in civil cases that involve pecuniary issues, both sides, subject to the rules of procedural fairness, could determine what issues be raised and what were relevant questions to ask. In paragraph 143, the High Court then ruled that “the proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory agency relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require the regulatory agency to make some final
judgment about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.”

MoF #6: On the 21st February 2017, the Statement of facts and Issues for AAT 2016/5334, 2nd appeal was lodged via email and the estimated toll of 100,000 or more deaths caused by fraudulent tort actions contained in these documents was not contested by the lawyer representing the government.

 

The Unconstitutional Royal Commission:

THE TEXT:

On the 28th September 2018, Commissioner Kenneth Hayne QC delivered the interim report of the Financial Services Royal Commission of Inquiry, hereafter the SFRC, to the Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove. Whilst the question of law in the report, “How did this happen?” is a legally valid question, in law, the report itself is not because the Financial Services Royal Commission of Inquiry and its interim findings are “The fruit of the poisoned tree.” Due diligence obligations now requires the Boards of Directors, Chief Executive Officers and legal counsel for each of the financial services organizations accused of misconduct in the interim report of the Financial Services Royal Commission to test the legality of the FSRC interim report by undertaking a comprehensive legal evaluation of the possibility that the report is legally invalid and that all the sworn testimony given during the inquiry is, in law, “fruit of the poisoned tree” that cannot be used by regulators when imposing fines or alleging criminal misconduct. 

 Whilst the idea that the FSRC interim report is legally invalid “poisoned fruit” may, on first consideration, appear to be spurious, there are numerous case law precedents that have profound implications that need to be considered before any reasonable determination of the issue can be made, e.g.  Keating v Morris & Ors; Leck v Morris & Ors [2005] QSC 243, (1 September 2005). At paragraph 36 of his Findings, Justice Moynihan stated:

 “It is of “fundamental importance” that parties and the general public have full confidence in the fairness of decisions and the impartiality of decision makers to whom the rules of procedural fairness apply. Condemnation without a proper hearing or by an apparently biased tribunal is unacceptable; exoneration by such a tribunal may be worthless.”

 At paragraph 6 in the majority decision of Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd HCA 54, (31 August 1920), Justice Isaacs stated: “When a State attempts to give to its legislative or executive authority an operation which, if valid, would fetter, control, or interfere with, the free exercise of the legislative or executive power of the Commonwealth, the attempt, unless expressly authorized by the Constitution, to that extent invalid and inoperative.” At paragraph 9 of his findings in this case, Justice Higgins stated: “Once we find a valid Federal law—say, a law as to trade and commerce with other countries—the Courts and Judges and people of every State must obey it, whatever the State laws may say to the contrary.”

 Note the phrase “Once we find a valid law…”: Effective as of the federal election in 2004, the Australian Federal Parliament has not enacted any valid federal law and the Executive of the governments appointed in 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016 have not made legally valid decisions because of defective administrative by the Australian Electoral Commission, which had failed to uphold the Constitution by conducted ‘hybrid elections’ in which an unknown number of constitutionally ineligible candidates participated. On the 14th March 2002, in paragraph 51of Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj, HCA 11, Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron ruled that “A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all”. Their Honours also emphasized the fact that such jurisdictional errors are “A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.”  At paragraph 53 Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron further emphasized their rulings in paragraph 51, i.e. “As already pointed out, 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. Thus, not only is there no legal impediment under the general law to a decision-maker making such a decision but, as a matter of strict legal principle, he or she is required to do so. And that is so, regardless of s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act.”

 Neither the AEC nor almost 15 million Electors who cast hundreds of millions of preferential ballots in the 2016 hybrid election had the constitutional right to be participate in hybrid elections. Therefore, the AEC’s Declarations of Results for all 226 vacancies were constitutionally invalid declarations, i.e. they were/are, “in law, no decision at all.” The determinations of Justices Gummow and Gaudron at 51 – 53 in Bhardwaj mean that, in law, all legislative and executive decisions made by the current Federal Parliament are “no decision at”, e.g. the establishment of the FSRC.

The Implications

The implications of these statutory declarations are huge.

As Judge Gray, the Victorian State Coroner, pointed out 4 years ago, I am raising issues of national and international significance.

Firstly, have a federal parliament that has been robbing and randomly killing welfare recipients for a very, very long time and the “total of the tape” on these deaths may exceed 100,000.

Secondly, we have unconstitutionally elected governments enforcing legally invalid laws on everyone from impoverished welfare recipients to international banking corporations.

Thirdly, ANY PERSON, whether accused of major crimes or welfare recipients being ripped off by Centrelink, can use these statutory declarations to demand that government prosecutors or lawyers explain the facts raised in these statutory declarations.

Since the deaths of welfare recipients are unreported, are secretly classified and are officially “irrelevant”, that’s not a job that I would want if I was a government lawyer, especially given this very persuasive precedent from an English House of Lords decision that opens the door to the Secretary of the Department of Social Services being subpoenaed to attend every AAT appeal and explain why she never bothered to report the deaths of welfare recipients in Centrelink’s annual reports:

Bushell v Minister of State for the  Environment HL 7 (Feb’ 1980)

The Opinion of Lord Edmund-Davies

(c) “Natural justice requires that objectors (no less than departmental representatives) be allowed to cross-examine witnesses called for the other side on all relevant matters, be they matters of fact or matters of expert opinion.

(d) In the exercise of jurisdiction outside the field of criminal law, the only restrictions on cross-examination are those general and well-defined exclusionary rules which govern the admissibility of relevant evidence (as to which reference may be had to Cross on evidence, 5th edition (1979) p.17); to go beyond those restrictions there is no discretion on the civil side to exclude cross-examination on relevant matters.”

Senator Brandis admission that “mistakes” by Centrelink have “terrible human consequences”, opens the door to the question as to exactly just how “terrible” are those consequences, i.e. how many innocent people has Centrelink killed?

With an unconfirmed, but also undisputed, estimated death toll of around 100,000, or more, Secretary Campbell has a statutory obligation not to harm people that, like very member of Parliament over the last 40-years,  she apparently did not know about if the content of some her public speeches are an accurate guide, e.g a speech made in August 2015 that can be read at the following URL:

https://www.themandarin.com.au/49014-kathryn-campbell-human-services-merger/

Take note of the following statements:

“[Citizens] should tell us their circumstances and we should be able to tell them what support we can provide to them. Our current systems don’t allow us to do that. They were very siloed; they were built in the 1980s, and they need replacing.”

CENTRELINK’S COMPUTER IS STATE OF THE ARK;

“Our current systems don’t allow us to do that. They were very siloed; they were built in the 1980s, and they need replacing.”

Pay very close attention to to the word “siloed” and the fact that Centrelink’s computer is early 1980s technology. This technology was “State of the Ark” when first purchased. Information is in database field that must be accessed manually by creating a database report for each client under review. That is a major propble as the next statement clearly reveals.

4,000 Redundancies

So we also had overstaffed at that point, and we had to reduce by about $200 million in staffing as well. That meant 10% had to be cut overall in 18 months, which saw 4000 staff leave, although none through forced redundancy.”

The KPIs that the department has across all its services and channels are dictated by the funding available for the department to meet its obligations. The department has estimated that to reduce the KPI to an average speed of answer of 5 minutes, it would need an additional 1000 staff at a cost of over $100 million each and every year.”

 

CALL BLOCKING:

Once upon a time we were able to reduce wait times by … call blocking,” Campbell said, touching on another issue which came under public scrutiny following the ANAO report. “We put the ‘engaged’ signal up and no calls could get in, so you could actually serve those people quicker, but we used to get a lot of complaints about the engaged signal.”

THEY PREVENTED PEOPLE FROM REPORTING INCOME AND THEN PROSECUTED THEM FOR FRAUD WITHOUT MENTIONING THIS CRUCIAL FACT TO THE COURTS!

Under-funded and under-staffed, Centrelink is responsible for a humanitarian disaster with an unreported, officially “irrelevant” death toll that may now be well beyond the 100,000 mark at this stage.

Victims of this randomly lethal mismanagement of Australia’s welfare system should file a Section 142(2) Commonwealth Criminal Code complaint with the local  police and cite me as a material witness when doing so.

Ronald Medlicott. Registered teacher & a Christian volunteer lay-advocate

 

Posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Part 52D: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Legal aspects of the 4 statutory declarations submitted to the South Australian police and the South Australian Coroner as part of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity complaints.

Below are JPG images of 4 statutory declarations, that need to be accompanied by large font size transcripts of the 4 declarations so that people reading this journal posting on a mobile phone or a small screen tablet can read the text.

NOTE: The short link URL for this posting is:  https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1f1

Before you read the 1st declaration, I believe that you should be aware of the following High Court of Australia (HCA) decisions, which I reference by abbreviated case name, case file number and date of issue of the Court’s findings.

AMALGAMATED ENGINEERS, HCA 54 on 31st August 1920.

At paragraph 4 of the Majority 4-1-1 decision, the High Court ruled:

“… as the Commonwealth and State Parliaments and Executives are themselves bound by the declarations of this Court as to their powers inter se, our responsibility is so much the greater to give the true effect to the relevant constitutional provisions.”

Neither of the 2 justices who presented minority decisions opposed that statement. The Australian Federal Parliament, and by extension, all Australian federal government departments and agencies, e.g. Centrelink and the AAT, are, like Lower Courts, bound by the High Court’s decisions and must comply with them. This include a veritable tsunami of decisions that includes the following procedural fairness decisions.

BRIGINSHAW VERSUS BRIGINSHAW; HCA 34 on 30th June 1938.

 At paragraph 15 of his findings, Justice Dixon ruled:

‘But reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind that is attained or established independently of the nature and consequence of the fact or facts to be proved. The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters “reasonable satisfaction” should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences.’

Justice Dixon was saying that whether a case was criminal case or a civil action, never base decisions upon assumptions. This is especially so in cases brought by government agencies for a number of reasons. There is also the issue of “consequences’ that routinely prove to be fatal, e.g. the officially “irrelevant” suicides triggered by Centrelink’s ‘Skip-the-courts’ tort actions against welfare recipients.tortious

BHARDWAJ, HCA 11 on 14th March 2002.

At paragraphs 51 and 53 Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron jointly ruled:

[At 51] A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all…. A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.

[At 53] As already pointed out, 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. Thus, not only is there no legal impediment under the general law to a decision-maker making such a decision but, as a matter of strict legal principle, he or she is required to do so. And that is so, regardless of s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act.

 Never assume that the laws created by the Federal Parliament are legally valid until a court tests those laws and also never assume that government agencies, e.g. Centrelink, have the power to do some of the things that they.

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Keating HCA 20 on the 8th May 2012.

After some 15,000 welfare recipients had been prosecuted and convicted of an extinguished law, the Federal Parliament breached the Abuse of Public Office law and Work health Safety laws that prohibit harmful conduct, tried to “fix” this monstrous legal blunder with a retrospective law. At paragraphs 46 and 47 of the Keating decision, the High Court dismissed this outrageous, hum,an rights violating law by ruling that the law was a “statutory fiction”‘

  1. On the Director’s construction, s 66A creates a statutory fiction 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.

[At 47] A clear statement of legislative intention is required before the courts will find that liability for a serious Commonwealth offence is imposed by means of a statutory fiction

NEVER ASSUME THAT A FEDERAL LAW IS LEGALLY VALID – ESPECIAL;LY SINCE THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS OF 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 AND 2016 WERE NOT CONDUCTED IN A CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID MANNER. ALSO, NEVER ASSUME THAT PUBLIC SERVANTS, AND CONTRACTED SERVICE PROVIDERS, HAVE THE POWERS THAT THEY CLAIM TO HAVE

ASIC v. HELLICAR & Others, HCA 17  on 3rd May 2012.

At paragraphs 141 to 143 the High Court ruled:

How this duty which the Court of Appeal identified ASIC as having differs in any relevant respect from the duty of a Crown prosecutor considered in Whitehorn and in Apostilides was not examined. And insofar as the duty was said to stem from a proposition “that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth, in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred”, that premise is false for at least two reasons.

First, the proposition ignores that even a criminal trial “is not, and does not purport to be, an examination and assessment of all the information and evidence that exists, bearing upon the question of guilt or innocence”]. Each side in a criminal trial “is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue, the evidence which it or he will call, and what questions whether in chief or in cross-examination shall be asked; always, of course, subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility.Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent requirements.

Second, the proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory agency relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require the regulatory agency to make some final judgment about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.

There are 2 very important points here:

Firstly, once a person challenges the decision of a regulator, e.g. a welfare recipient challenges a Centrelink decision, before any enforceable decision can be made, the matter must be referred by Centrelink, at Centrelink’s expense, to the courts so that  the “primary fact [that] actually occurred” can be determined by a Court. If Centrelink officials ‘skip-the-court’ then, as Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron ruled in Bhardwaj at 51 and  53, “A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all, …then, in law, the duty to make a decision remains unperformed.

Every challenged Centrelink must have the facts determined by a Court, at an average cost in 2013, i.e. 5 years ago, of $25,000 per case. The first question that should be asked in an AAT hearing is “WHAT ARE THE COURT’S FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS OF THE MATTER ? Without any such court findings there is no legally valid decision and the only lawful option open to the AAT conference registrar is set the hearing aside until such time as a court determination of the facts is made. Whilst ‘Skipping the courts’ may be hugely cost effective for Centrelink, in law, it is violation of the Abuse of Public Office law in section 142, sub-paragra2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. This means that under every State and territory criminal code in Australia, any deaths caused by this crime are culpable homicides.

These points of law underscore why the statement by Senator George Brandis concerning fatal mistakes by Centrelink open the door to criminal investigations into how many fatal mistakes has Centrelink made and, in law, just how appropriate are “compliance measures” that randomly kill innocent people? In addition, consistent with the case law precedents above, any person, whether accused of major crimes such as manslaughter or murder, or welfare recipients challenging a Centrelink decision, can insist that Centrelink disclose just how many fatalities have occurred. a point of law underscored by Justice Brennan’s determination

KIO v. WEST, HCA 81 on 18th December 1985.

Nevertheless in the ordinary case where no problem of confidentiality arises an opportunity should be given to deal with adverse information that is credible, relevant and significant to the decision to be made. It is not sufficient for the repository of the power to endeavour to shut information of that kind out of his mind and to reach a decision without reference to it. Information of that kind creates a real risk of prejudice, albeit subconscious, and it is unfair to deny a person whose interests are likely to be affected by the decision an opportunity to deal with the information. He will be neither consoled nor assured to be told that the prejudicial information was left out of account.

When it comes to “credible, relevant and significant”, Centrelink has been engaged in a massive decades-long criminal abuse of power and as of 21st February 2017, was unable to deny that this criminal activity ,may have caused more than 100,000 fatalities that violate criminal homicide laws and Work Health & Safety “Reckless Conduct” laws in every in every State and territory in Australia as well as the murder provision contained in Article 7 subparagraph 1A of the Rome Statute. Any person has the statutory obligation to query these death with the police and every court or administrative tribunal must require that if asked, Centrelink must provide “adverse information” such as the known number of fatalities linked to ‘Skip-the-courts’ tort actions, even though this information may result in a serial murder investigation of Centrelink.

Statutory Declaration #1 – The Brandis Confession.

R 100000 dead dec

A video of Senator Brandis opening the door to the question as just how “appropriate” are compliance measures can be viewed at:

 

Patel v The Queen, HCA 29 on the 24th August 2012

This case provides insight under Queensland’s criminal code as to just how inappropriate are “appropriate compliance measures” that randomly kill innocent people who have done no wrong:

[At 11] Under the Criminal Code, a person who causes the death of another is deemed to have killed that other person (s 293).  A person who unlawfully kills another in circumstances which do not constitute murder is guilty of manslaughter (s 303).  A person who kills another does so unlawfully unless the killing is authorised, justified or excused by law (s 291).  In the present case, for convictions on the counts of manslaughter to be returned it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the appellant caused the death of the three patients, thereby killing them (s 293).  For a conviction on the count of grievous bodily harm, it was necessary to prove that the appellant had done grievous bodily harm to another and that the doing of it was unlawful (s 320).

[At 12] Section 282 is an exculpatory provision which may apply in the case of a surgical procedure.  At the relevant time, it provided:

“A person is not criminally responsible for performing in good faith and with reasonable care and skill a surgical operation upon any person for the patient’s benefit, or upon an unborn child for the preservation of the mother’s life, if the performance of the operation is reasonable, having regard to the patient’s state at the time and to all circumstances of the case.”

It is my contention that “appropriate compliance measures” are not “an exculpatory provision” under Queensland’s criminal code for “mistakes” that randomly kill innocent victims of criminal abuses of public office.

Section 31 of Queensland’s Work health & Safety Act (2011) contains the following “Reckless Conduct” statutes:

Reckless conduct—category 1
(1) A person commits a category 1 offence if—
(a) the person has a health and safety duty; and
(b) the person, without reasonable excuse, engages in
conduct that exposes an individual to whom that duty is
owed to a risk of death or serious injury or illness; and
(c) the person is reckless as to the risk to an individual of
death or serious injury or illness.
Maximum penalty—
(a) for an offence committed by an individual, other than as
a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an
officer of a person conducting a business or
undertaking—3,000 penalty units or 5 years
imprisonment; or
(b) for an offence committed by an individual as a person
conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of
a person conducting a business or undertaking—6,000
penalty units or 5 years imprisonment; or
(c) for an offence committed by a body corporate—30,000
penalty units.

Compare the Queensland Reckless Conduct law with South Australia’s Work Health & Safety Act (2012):

Reckless conduct—Category 1

    (1)     A person commits a Category 1 offence if—

     (a)     the person has a health and safety duty; and

    (b)     the person, without reasonable excuse, engages in conduct that exposes an individual to whom that duty is owed to a risk of death or serious injury or illness; and

     (c)     the person is reckless as to the risk to an individual of death or serious injury or illness.

Maximum penalty:

     (a)     in the case of an offence committed by an individual (other than as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking)—$300 000 or 5 years imprisonment or both;

(b) in the case of an offence committed by an individual as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking—$600 000 or 5 years imprisonment or both;

(c)     in the case of an offence committed by a body corporate—$3 000 000.

Whilst the wording of the penalties may differ, the Reckless Conduct statutes are the same in both States. Randomly killing innocent people is a crime in both States and in fact in every State and territory in  Australia.

Not intending to kill people is not an excuse for doing so. a fact of law under Murder provisions in section 302 of the Queensland Crimes Act and Section 13 (7) of the South Australian criminal Law Consolidation Act. Deliberately committing a crime that places a person under such DURESS that they commit suicide is MURDER in both States (and in every other State and Territory.s

Queensland: Section 302:- Note 302 (b)

Definition of murder
(1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills
another under any of the following circumstances, that is to
say—
(a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person
killed or that of some other person or if the offender
intends to do to the person killed or to some other
person some grievous bodily harm;
(b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the
prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such
a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;
(c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to
some person for the purpose of facilitating the
commission of a crime which is such that the offender
may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of
facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed
or attempted to commit any such crime;                                                          (d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or
overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned
in paragraph (c);
(e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any
person for either of such purposes;
is guilty of murder.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA – Section 13 (7) of the criminal code:

A person who, by fraud, duress or undue influence, procures the suicide of another or an attempt by another to commit suicide shall (whether or not he was a party to a suicide pact with the other person) be guilty of murder or attempted murder, as the case may require.

The words may be different, but the message is very clear; when Centrelink officials ‘skip-the-courts’ and fatalities occur, even suicides caused by this criminal abuse of public authority are murders. Therefore, in cases that involve either the Crown or Centrelink, asking just how “terrible” are the “terrible human consequences” of Centrelink’s fatal “mistakes” is a question that is credible, relevant and significant that MUST BE ANSWERED, even if the answer triggers fraud and serial murder investigations in every State and territory in Australia.

HANSARD – THE CARC MINUTES

For absolutely irrefutable evidence of randomly lethal criminal abuses of power, look no further than the Hansard Minutes of Australia’s unconstitutionally elected 45th Parliament.

 

8-3-18 CARC crop

Ms. Nadine Flood, President of the Community & Public Sector Union (CPSU) made the following statement on page 13 of these minutes:

“gaming of the system’ – a life and death issue:

The decision to replace the human oversight of debt recovery with

If we want to look at where robo-debt has come from, it is a fairly obvious consequence of a department that no longer has the resources to provide effective services.

The decision to replace the human oversight of debt recovery with automated data matching was absolutely based on a desire and an imperative to save money. It has of course proven to be a classic false economy and has created costly reverse workflows where staff are taken offline to deal with complex and difficult disputes over incorrectly raised automated debts. Sadly, I would suggest that in the last few years, one of the things DHS has become an expert at is bandaid solutions as it lurched from one crisis to the next. This is simply the largest of those.

As a result, the department tries to plug the gap in those services with casual staff who do not have access to the appropriate training, who are deeply frustrated that they cannot do the work and who are largely used to answer the phone and redirect customer inquiries, which allows the department to keep its core statistics lower; someone has clicked on it, they cannot fix the problem, but it is going through to another line and that is good enough.

That sort of gaming of the system is the situation this department has been put in.

Centrelink is playing a very real “Game of Life” in which vulnerable people dies; a matter of fact clearly evidenced in the following statements by Ms. Lisa Newman, the Deputy President of the CPSU, which are on page 14 of these minutes:

In January we started to have contact from members who were reporting that average incomes could lead to incorrect debt calculations and customers could end up paying money that they did not owe before a debt was proven to exist.

A mismatch in employer information could also lead to double counting of income and therefore generate false debt statistics.

Customers would be unable to get the documentation they required to prove that the debt did not exist, and customers would not be advised of their appeal rights.

We have also been told by our members, as Nadine said, that the customary oversight has been removed from the system before contact with customers has been initiated and that, instead, that oversight has been limited to queries and requests for reassessments once notices have been issued and received by customers.

Members have been particularly disturbed by reports of managers instructing frontline staff not to correct errors that they find and instead to push customers onto self-service mechanisms and/or refer them to a different part of the department—namely, the OCI teams.

The above comment, if true means that Centrelink managers are deliberately defrauding welfare recipients. That makes the following statements by Ms. Newman of enormous legal significance:

DHS staff—our members—want to help customers, and that is why they find it so distressing to see their department putting customers at an increased risk of depression, decreased motivation, self-harm and even suicide.

There have been anecdotal reports about increased levels of customer aggression directed at Centrelink workers that includes swearing, threats, physical aggression and spitting.

We would make the case that the Turnbull government needs to suspend this system.

It needs to fix the system so that before it contacts a person over an alleged debt it has skilled and experienced staff assessing that person’s records holistically, because automated systems cannot read customer records and see the details that experienced officers can.

Ms. Flood and Ms. Newman have described an extremely dysfunctional, extremely corrupt system that is both systematically defrauding vulnerable people and also randomly killing some of these people.Newman.

 

May 2017 crop

At page 48 of these Minutes, Kathryn Campbell, the Head of the Department of Human Services, a.k./a Centrelink, made the following statement, which may violate every Reckless Conduct and reckless Indifference homicide law within the Commonwealth of Australia:

Kathryn Campbell“It is quite difficult if we are not informed that a person has died. We work very diligently with state and territory governments to ensure that we are capturing information about deaths. But, sadly, there are so many recipients in the systems it is the case that sometimes we are writing to people who are no longer alive.”

This statement is totally at odds with Secretary campbell’s statute law obligations not to kill people.

 

MY ADVICE?

Policeman

Call the Cops

————————————————————————————————————-

I have run out of time for today and will comment on the next 3 statutory declarations in future journal postings. Please read them carefully. Transcripts for each declaration will also be provided in these postings.

———————————————————————————–

Statutory Declaration #2 – Criminal Responsibility.

 

Compliance measures stat dec

 

Statutory Declaration #3 – Matters of Fact

MoF Stat Dec

 

Statutory Declaration #4 – How did this Happen?

FSRC

St Paul wrote: “Put all things to the test and only keep what is good.” Do that with everything that I write.

Ronald Medlicott

Registered teacher and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate

 

Posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Part 52C: Australia’s “irrelevant Crimes Against Humanity. A letter to Mark johns, the South Australian Coroner.

Mark Johns, the South Australian State Coroner is about to have posted to him a letter that provides details of how the Australian Federal Parliament has been systematically menacing, terrorizing, defrauding, endangering and  randomly killing people for decades.

Mark Johns letter 1

NOTE: The short link URL for this blog is: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1eT

Tracking colour

The Express post letter was posted today at 11:55AM and can be tracked with the above number.

The letter to Coroner Mark Johns:

Ronald Medlicott 40 Siddall Road Elizabeth Vale SA 5112

Ph: (08) 8255 3638  Mobile: 04386 26811 22nd October 2018

Attn:                State Coroner Mark Johns

South Australian Coroners Court

302 King William Street  ADELAIDE SA 5000

Dear Coroner Johns,

Re: The contents of Express Post envelope 60538616505098, which are intended to draw to your attention to the fact that across our nation, dysfunctional welfare policies and practices are randomly killing vulnerable people and every safety system in the nation that should have prevented these fatalities, including the south Australian Coroners court, has failed to do so.

Today has been declared a special day to mark the failure of the nation to prevent the exploitation and sexual abuse of un-numbered thousands of vulnerable children. However, even as we acknowledge these terrible events, a far larger and far more-deadly humanitarian disaster rolls on like a run-away freight train careering down a steep mountain railroad track. The situation is now so bad that on the 18th May  2017 the head of the federal Department of Human Services, Secretary Kathryn Campbell, made the following unreal statement:

“It is quite difficult if we are not informed that a person has died. We work very diligently with state and territory governments to ensure that we are capturing information about deaths. But, sadly, there are so many recipients in the systems it is the case that sometimes we are writing to people who are no longer alive.”

 3-months earlier, as can be seen and heard in the appended videos, the federal Attorney-General George Brandis had admitted that mistakes by Centrelink were inevitable and that these mistakes were causing “terrible human consequences.”  Unaware of that statement, the next day I submitted an AAT appeal for case 2016/5334 that included the following statement:

“If I am correct, over a time frame measured in decades, the Australian Federal Parliament has deliberately raped the civil rights of 4 – 5 million vulnerable Australians and as a direct consequence of this systematic rape of rights, the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll caused by this ravaging of civil rights may be close to, or even exceed,100,000 in number. Theoretically, it could even be the unthinkable, i.e. close to 1,000,000 dead.”

No matter how unbelievable that AAT appeal statement may seem to be, Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, a Depart of Human Services lawyer based in that Department’s the Freedom of Information & Litigation Section, did not to contest that statement. Instead, on the 22nd February 2017, Ms. Ulrick issued a ‘Without prejudice’ proffer directly to the applicant, Mr. Marcelo Havaunes, with out providing me, Mr. Havaunes authorized representative, with a copy of that proffer.

One of the Functus Officio documents for that appeal, dated 7th March 2017, is included in the Issues Paper 42 of the Emcott Report, which is included with this letter. The next day, on the 8th March 2017, Ms. Nadine flood, the President of the Community and Public Sector Union, made the following statement during a Community Affairs Reference Committee hearing:

 “If we want to look at where robo-debt has come from, it is a fairly obvious consequence of a department that no longer has the resources to provide effective services. The decision to replace the human oversight of debt recovery with automated data matching was absolutely based on a desire and an imperative to save money. It has of course proven to be a classic false economy and has created costly reverse workflows where staff are taken offline to deal with complex and difficult disputes over incorrectly raised automated debts. Sadly, I would suggest that in the last few years, one of the things DHS has become an expert at is bandaid solutions as it lurched from one crisis to the next. This is simply the largest of those.”

 That statement concerning how the automated alleged-debt recovery program works needs to be evaluated within the scope of a binding precedent enunciated by the High Court on the 3rd May 2012 at 141 – 143 in ASIC v. Hellicar [HCA 17]: i.e. once a regulator’s decision is disputed, it is a matter for the courts:

[At 143] “Second, the proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory agency relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require the regulatory agency to make some final judgment about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.”

  Speaking at the same CARC hearing, Ms. Lisa Newman, the Deputy President of the Community and Public Sector Union, told the committee:

“Members have been particularly disturbed by reports of managers instructing frontline staff not to correct errors that they find and instead to push customers onto self-service mechanisms and/or refer them to a different part of the department—namely, the OCI teams… DHS staff—our members—want to help customers, and that is why they find it so distressing to see their department putting customers at an increased risk of depression, decreased motivation, self-harm and even suicide.”

 What Ms. Flood and Ms. Newman described were deliberate, systematic violations of sections 130, 131,  135, 136, 138 and 142 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and the parallel provisions contained in States and Territories criminal codes.

The testimonies of Ms. Flood and Ms. Newman should never have been made to the Community Affairs Reference Committee because the senators serving on this committee share both civil and criminal responsibility, along with  with hundreds of other past and present Members of the Federal Parliament,  for the all of the harms caused by these criminal activities, e.g. the unknown, unreported, officially “irrelevant” estimated death toll, which may be around  100,000, or even far more. This figure, which Secretary Campbell was neither able to confirm or deny on the 21st February 2017, was not made known to at the CARC hearing on 18th May 2017.

In his letter dated 28  October 2014, your fellow Victorian coroner, Judge Ian L. Gray, stated:

“You raise a number of important general issues to do with justice and human rights, both nationally and internationally.”

 Over the last 30 – 40 years, the civil rights of millions of welfare recipients have been systematically violated by successive federal governments. Victims of these systemic abuses of power have been  traumatized, exploited, defrauded, recklessly endangered, and the with a cumulative ‘all-cause’ death toll that is likely to be some in excess of 100,000, Judge gray’s comment is a gross understatement. Please note that I have documentary evidence that in August 2014 that I had written to Judge Gray expressing specific concerns about two fatalities hat had occurred in Victoria and he was apparently unaware of my previous correspondence. This would indicate that someone within the Office of the Victoria Coroners Court may have  prevented Judge Lake from seeing that information. The identification of the person(s) responsible for that is a matter for the Victorian Police or the Victorian Crime Commission.

This correspondence and the enclosed documents have been transmitted to you in Express Post envelope #60538616505098. The legal status of the contents of this envelope, including my covering letter to you, need to be considered in relation to Section 5AA (2) of the South Australian criminal Law consolidation Act (1935):

“A person is taken to know a particular fact if the person, knowing of the possibility that it is true, is reckless as to whether it is true or not.”

That statute is a crucial  ‘legal litmus test’ when considering the credibility, relevance and significance of the issues raised in these documents:

  1. The Emcott Report, Issues Paper #42 – Chapman-gate: This is a public request to the South Australian Police to investigate an apparent abuse of public by two or more high ranking public officials, Vickie Chapman and Bruce Lander.
  2. Your version Issues Paper 42 is a compilation the following 17 documents:

 

  1. Judge Ian L. Gray’s letter dated 28 October 2014;
  2. Four statutory declarations concerning issues of grave national significance;
  3. A letter from Mark Fraser OAM, Deputy Secretary to the Governor-General, this is dated  4 October 2009;
  4. A cover page and pages 12 -14 of the Hansard minutes for the Australian Senate’s Community Affairs Reference Committee hearing held on the 8th March 2017;
  5. A cover page and page 48 of the Hansard minutes for the Australian Senate’s Community Affairs Reference Committee hearing held on the 18th May 2017;
  6. Centrelink document C10/1866, signed by Assistant Secretary Neill Skill;
  7. Centrelink document LEX 21021, signed by A/g Chief Legal Counsel, Alice Linacre;
  8. An Administrative Appeals Tribunal letter for 2016/5334, dated 7 March 2017;
  9. SAPOL correspondence dated 23 May 2011, signed by Superintendent Grant Moyle;
  10. A Federal Police email, dated 14 September 2009, sent by Federal Agent Jeff Pearce;
  11. A 2-page undated letter from the Legal & Constitutional Reference Committee, posted on the 30th November 2005, notifying me that submission 287 to the November 2005 Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry had been classified as confidential;
  12. A 1-page letter, signed by John Carter, the Secretary of the Employment, Workplace Relation; and Education Reference Committee that dismissed the (classified) deaths of welfare recipients as “unsubstantiated” and “irrelevant”:
  13. A 1-page letter signed by Senator bob Brown and volunteer office worker, Ron Jelleff, acknowledging that welfare policies and practices could cause suicides;
  14. A copy of a 4-page letter sent to Nick Champi0n MP, dated 5th July 2014, detailing a range of issues including the suicides of more than 20,000 people, 1 in 3 of who was an unemployed Centrelink client;
  15. “OOPS!” – a 7-page document that when presented to a Senior Constable on duty at the Hindley Street Police Station shortly before 11.00AM on the 17th October 2017, provoked a violent verbal response with the constable refusing to accept any information concerning the possible murder of welfare recipients, despite being informed that the cumulative death toll may exceed 100,000 over the last 40-years. With a junior constable witness to these events, the senior constable informed me that she would not listen to what I had to say and walked away. 4-days after this extremely traumatic event, SAPOL shot and killed Matthew Morgan, an incident that further raised my grave concerns about SAPOL’s role in failing to protect the people of South Australia from serious or systemic fatal harms.
  16. A video DVD: “The Emcott Report. The Brandis Confession; Insights in Australia’s appropriate compliance measures murders.”
  17. A video DVD: “The Emcott Report. ROBO-TALK 4th edition.

Since the issues presented in this document deal with extremely serious alleged violations of the law, a copy of this communication to you has been placed on the public record by uploading copies of the text and some of the documents to my Ronald’s space website.

Yours truly,

Ronald Medlicott. (Registered teacher and a volunteer lay-Advocate.)

8-3-18 CARC crop

Pages 12 – 14: The testimony of Nadine Flood

The text below is from pages 12 – 14 of the above Australian Senate committee hearing. Note that this testimony was made under the parliamentary privilege of an unconstitutionally elected parliament.

Note #1:  ‘Robo-Debt’ is a criminal abuse of power because, in law, a data mismatch is not of itself reasonable grounds that provide probable cause for requesting that welfare recipients to explain the cause of the mismatch. A competent auditor must first certify that neither Centrelink nor the ATO has not made a mistake, which is a major problem with Centrelink.

Note #2: Once a welfare recipient challenges a Centrelink decision, it is a matter for the courts, at a cost to Centrelink of $25,000+. Skipping the courts is a criminal abuse of power that carries a 5-year jail sentence PER VIOLATION, i.e. Centrelink is racking 100,000 years of jail time PER WEEK.

Note#3: I have emphasized and reformatted the text of Nadine Flood’s testimony for clarity, but the wording and the order of wording have not been changed.

CHAIR: Welcome. Can I double-check that you have been given information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses and evidence.
Ms Newman: We have.
CHAIR: I now invite you to make an opening statement and then we will ask you some questions.

Ms Flood: The Community and Public Sector Union represents the real humans working at the centre of the Centrelink Online Compliance Intervention, more commonly known as the robo-debt debacle.

Our community legitimately expects that government provide a properly resourced, transparent and accessible social security system which supports people in our community as needed through critical times of their lives. Delivery of those services is the role of the aptly named Department of Human Services, with the work done by our members. It is work they value and believe in, supporting families, pensioners, low-income earners, students and people, as they face life’s challenges from illness to unemployment.

Our members believe that system is a cornerstone of a fair society and it is work that they are proud of and deeply committed to. However, what the Online Compliance Intervention and other failings in this department show is that years of government funding cuts and poor policy decisions have severely reduced the department’s capacity to be that cornerstone and to deliver for our community. Of course what we are seeing currently is a very high human price being paid both by clients, the people in our community who rely on Centrelink and Human Services, and by the people themselves who work for the department.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the Department of Human Services is an agency in crisis, and it is not something I say lightly. The automated compliance or robo-debt issue has hit well over 300,000 people in our community, and of course there are approximately 20,000 letters still going out each week. We have an approach from government, and indeed the senior management of the department, which seems more focused on denying there is a problem and spinning the problem then actually dealing with.

More than 36 million calls to the Department of Human Services went unanswered last year as the department is no longer able to provide a basic level of service to Australians. Centrelink and Human Services’ workers are already struggling with massive workload and pressures and the real lived impact of 5,000 permanent job cuts through a series of successive government decisions that have left this department simply unable to cope. Indeed, elements of that were acknowledged by the secretary of the department in estimates last week. What that means is that this department is increasingly placed in the position by government of making very bad decisions.

I think it is important to understand the root causes of these issues which do go back some years. If we deal with the lived impacts on our community now, we can see that the department has been put in a position where it has made decisions with the recent introduction of the automatic debt recovery program to remove or reduce the role of DHS staff in that crucial hands-on element of the work: investigating suspected overpayments and advising on appropriate debt recovery action. The notion that our community expects people should get what they are entitled to and no more is not a new one or a new part of this department’s work. But there is a very serious problem here.

This new approach, which removes and reduces human oversight of suspected overpayments and reduces employees’ roles in a range of elements of the system, has been an absolute disaster for many Centrelink uses and also for the workers charged with implementing a system they know to be deeply flawed and unfair.

Hundreds of thousands of Australians, as you have heard, have received frightening and, in some cases, inaccurate debt notices and then faced enormous difficulties trying to get in touch with DHS staff.

Of course, at the other end, employees are unable to provide services of the sort they are committed to provide and are also increasingly facing client aggression and frustration.

So how did it come to this? Most of the major problems facing DHS begin with a lack of funding and resources and without proper funding the agency loses the capacity to make good policy decisions, design effective programs and ensure the right benefit goes to the right person at the right time and for the right amount.

DHS has faced a triple whammy of funding cuts starting under successive governments.

These do go back to Labor government decisions on efficiency dividends that have then rolled into the decisions of the Abbott/Turnbull government.

Service delivery agencies are hit hardest by a number of elements of budget funding processes. I would note that no government ever stood up and said, ‘We would like to cut 5,000 jobs from the Department of Human Services, and we think that is a good idea.’ It is simply the result of a number of decisions put together.

So-called efficiency dividends hit service delivery agencies harder.

Other whole-of-service savings measures, many emanating out of the Department of Finance, also generally hit service delivery agencies harder because they do not have the scope of policy agencies around program funding.

In DHS’s specific case, the machinery of government changes that resulted in the creation of this mega-agency and the service delivery reform initiatives included the classic Department of Finance mistake where you very clearly identify the savings that will supposedly come out of consolidation and these changes, take those up-front and then see what happens.

In this case those impacts have resulted in DHS being an agency that is absolutely struggling.

I note the secretary herself said cutting an agency by 10 per cent in 18 months has created no little challenge, which was at one point the impact of those combined three different elements of savings measures.

If we want to look at where robo-debt has come from, it is a fairly obvious consequence of a department that no longer has the resources to provide effective services.

The decision to replace the human oversight of debt recovery with automated data matching was absolutely based on a desire and an imperative to save money.

It has of course proven to be a classic false economy and has created costly reverse workflows where staff are taken offline to deal with complex and difficult disputes over incorrectly raised automated debts.

Sadly, I would suggest that in the last few years, one of the things DHS has become an expert at is bandaid solutions as it lurched from one crisis to the next.

This is simply the largest of those.

As a result, the department tries to plug the gap in those services with casual staff who do not have access to the appropriate training, who are deeply frustrated that they cannot do the work and who are largely used to answer the phone and redirect customer inquiries, which allows the department to keep its core statistics lower; someone has clicked on it, they cannot fix the problem, but it is going through to another line and that is good enough.

That sort of gaming of the system is the situation this department has been put in.

Our members believe that our social security service system must be robust, sensitive and flexible enough to deal with underpayments, overpayments and other changes in people’s lives in a way that ensures the integrity of Commonwealth funds and the dignity of customers.

That includes dealing with the reality of an economy and a workforce where people come in and out of work, employers come and go, and there is an increasing level of insecure employment, casual contracts and so on. It is a complex situation that people are in, and systems like this have to deal with that.

At the same time it is important we note there has been a disturbing cultural shift imposed on Centrelink and on the Department of Human Services.

It has increasingly gone from an agency focused on treating people like people to one that focuses on treating people as numbers in a dataset and doing the minimum possible.

It is also an agency that, more than most, ignores or discards the input of staff in relation to crucial work design and staffing issues and has a vicious and draconian approach to staff speaking out internally and externally.

I would note that this is possibly the only Senate inquiry in the last three years where CPSU representatives have appeared without bringing delegates or rank and file workplace representatives. In this case we felt that it was simply too difficult to ask those people to attend because of the circumstances and the pressure that is in place in this department at this time. We will be putting their feedback further in a written submission, but this is an unusual step for the CPSU.

The same ‘my way or the highway’ attitude that created the robo-debt debacle has caused major problems elsewhere, including the agency’s hopelessly stalled enterprise bargaining situation where DHS has again taken a more negative and unfortunate approach on government policy, significantly causing concerns for working women in that department and meaning that bargaining is impressively more mired in this agency than across the rest of the Commonwealth public sector, which is really quite a high bar after a three-year industrial dispute.

Crucially, one of the issues still in dispute in this agency is the need for robust predecision consultation processes where people who do the work in areas such as compliance can actually have a better voice to inform senior management on what will and will not work at the front line. Those sorts of issues are very important to the people who work in this agency.

So, we are calling for a number of things to happen. The Turnbull government must immediately suspend the online compliance program and actually put the real fixes in place so that this no longer hurts thousands of Australians.

There needs to be immediate action and a serious budget solution to reverse the damage done by the combination of multiple cuts to the Department of Human Services, including the reduction of 5,000 permanent jobs.

Any new approach should have properly resourced human oversight so that the agency can be confident that the overpayments it identifies and debts it raises are legitimate and accurate.

DHS must immediately be put in a position by government to convert casual workers—of which there are now thousands—to permanent roles with access to effective training and to be able to provide a genuine, full range of services and support to customers.

Finally, the culture in this agency needs to change, and the approach we have seen over recent months in this matter is a damning indictment, but it is also a responsibility of government. We need to deliver a system in which the people who work for DHS can deliver great services to the community, and the community can have faith in our social security system and this department’s work.

==========================================================================

How can welfare recipients deal with such a politically corrupt, dysfunctional and randomly lethal system?

Policeman

CALL THE COPS!

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian volunteer lay-advocate.

 

 

Posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 52B: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. I’ve called the cops – the tracking code and Lisa Newman’s incredible Hansard recorded testimony.

Stevens letter

The short link to this blog posting is:  https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1ey

Here is the tracking code for my letter to SAPOL’s Commissioner, Grant Stevens.

Tracking code

Note the date and time of posting: 10:57AM on Friday 19/10/18 with the post

After you have you checked out the tracking details, read the incredible testimony of LISA NEWMAN, the Deputy President of the Community & Public Sector Union. (CPSU, the union that represents Centrelink’s front line staff.

8-3-18 CARC crop

At page 14, Ms Newman said:

“The introduction of the automated debt processing system has been done without any consultation of effective staff or their union. We have not been consulted about the design of the system or its potential impact on staff.”

“We have watched the introduction of the system roll out with increasing levels of alarm and distress.”

“In January we started to have contact from members who were reporting that average incomes could lead to incorrect debt calculations and customers could end up paying money that they did not owe before a debt was proven to exist.”

A mismatch in employer information could also lead to double counting of income and therefore generate false debt statistics

“Customers would be unable to get the documentation they required to prove that the debt did not exist, and customers would not be advised of their appeal rights.

“We have also been told by our members, as Nadine said, that the customary oversight has been removed from the system before contact with customers has been initiated and that, instead, that oversight has been limited to queries and requests for reassessments once notices have been issued and received by customers.”

“Members have been particularly disturbed by reports of managers instructing frontline staff not to correct errors that they find and instead to push customers onto self-service mechanisms and/or refer them to a different part of the department—namely, the OCI teams.”

“This week I was contacted by a member with over 20 years experience in the department and extensive knowledge of debt management processes. She described the distress she felt at seeing the integrity of the debt management process that she has worked with for many years being sacrificed to the point where staff know that customers are going to incur needless debt.

“As she described it, the department has an obligation to pay the right person the right payment at the right rate at the right time. She told me that people are complex, with messy lives. The department has moved the burden of proof of a debt to customers, who in many cases struggle to find the required evidence to prove that they do not owe the alleged debt”.

“The system has had a significant impact on staff working with it. People have reported increased stress levels, increased absences from work, lack of sleep and increased customer aggression.”

“And I would just note to the committee that in our previous surveying on client aggression directed towards DHS staff financial stress was one of the primary triggers to incidents of aggression. Staff are also very concerned and very angry about what they see being done to some of the most vulnerable members of the community, and many feel morally conflicted in their role in this process.”

“In January we contacted the department to raise the concerns our members had contacted us to relay and also asked for a meeting with the department. We were given the advice that has generally been given to other organisations, and that is that the system was working as it was designed to work and that there was no need to meet and talk about any issues about the system in detail.”

“DHS staff—our members—want to help customers, and that is why they find it so distressing to see their department putting customers at an increased risk of depression, decreased motivation, self-harm and even suicide.”

“There have been anecdotal reports about increased levels of customer aggression directed at Centrelink workers that includes swearing, threats, physical aggression and spitting. We would make the case that the Turnbull government needs to suspend this system.”

It needs to fix the system so that before it contacts a person over an alleged debt it has skilled and experienced staff assessing that person’s records holistically, because automated systems cannot read customer records and see the details that experienced officers can.”

The department should also undertake an urgent risk assessment of the process to ensure that the risks to both the physical and mental health of both customers and staff are taken into consideration in the design of the system.”

“And there needs to be immediate action to reverse the damage done by cutting 5,000 permanent jobs from DHS.”

“Any new approach has to ensure that properly resourced human oversight in this agency occurs so that the government and the community can be confident that overpayments are identified and are correct.”

LISA NEWMAN’S TESTIMONY WAS COMPLETELY & UTTERLY UNREAL!

ACCORDING TO SENATOR GEORGE BRANDIS, THIS FRAUDULENT RIP-OFF WAS ALLEGEDLY INTRODUCED BY BOB HAWKE’ IN 1990, I.E. ALMOST 30 YEARS AGO, THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES HAS BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY DEFRAUDING AND RANDOMLY KILLING WELFARE RECIPIENTS  FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME AND NO-ONE STOPPED THEM!

 

COULD ANYTHING TOP THAT?

Try this: the testimony of Centrelink’s real boss (at the time), Kathryn Campbell.

Kathryn Campbell

Until September 2017, Centrelink’s real boss was Kathryn Campbell, not Hank Jongen the Chief Spin Doctor for Centrelink.

 

May 2017 crop

At page 48, Ms. Campbell’s totally unbelievable  statement is recorded:

“It is quite difficult if we are not informed that a person has died. We work very diligently with state and territory governments to ensure that we are capturing information about deaths. But, sadly, there are so many recipients in the systems it is the case that sometimes we are writing to people who are no longer alive.”

 

The Department of Human Services does not keep a record of the people that are being killed!  This is no surprise because  Centrelink randomly killing its clients with heart attacks, strokes, and suicides is a major crime under work safety laws!

 

The South Australian Work Health & Safety Act 2012

31—Reckless conduct—Category 1
(1) A person commits a Category 1 offence if—
(a) the person has a health and safety duty; and

(b) the person, without reasonable excuse, engages in conduct that exposes an individual to whom that duty is owed to a risk of death or serious injury or illness; and

(c) the person is reckless as to the risk to an individual of death or serious injury or illness.

Maximum penalty:
(a) in the case of an offence committed by an individual (other than as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking)—$300 000 or 5 years imprisonment or both;

(b) in the case of an offence committed by an individual as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking$600 000 or 5 years imprisonment or both;

(c) in the case of an offence committed by a body corporate—$3 000 000.

Each Centrelink death –

$600,000 or 5 years imprisonment or both for the person responsible, AND;

By a body corporate (as in Centrelink)

$3,000,000 PER FATALITY.

 

properly resourced human oversight

My solution to that issue?

Policeman

Call the cops!

The South Australian Police can either prosecute me for alleged criminal defamation or else investigate Centrelink’s unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll.

Ronald Medlicott – A volunteer Christian lay-advocate

 

 

Posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 52: Australia’s “irrelevant” holocaust – I’ve called the cops:- the choice is arrest me for criminal defamation or investigate the Federal Parliament for genocidal crimes against humanity.

Commissioner Grant Stevens, the commander of South Australia’s police force should receive the following letter on Monday. Commissioner Stevens with have 2 basic options with this letter.

Stevens letter

NOTE: At the time of uploading this blog, the letter to Commissioner Stevens has not been posted. That will happen by 3.00PM local time today.

OPTION #1: Charge and prosecute me for Criminal Defamation for falsely accusing the Federal Parliament of committing genocide and crimes against Humanity on a holocaust scale.

OPTION #2: Investigate the complain and try and determine just how “terrible” are the secretly classified “terrible human consequences” that Senator Brandis mentioned during the ABC’s #QandA broadcast on the 20th February 2017.

Note: the short-link URL for this posting is: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1ep

In addition to the text below and the appended documents mentioned in the text, the genocide complaint includes these 2 videos:

 

Stevens 4

Stevens 5

Since South Australia’s Independent Commissioner Against Corruption is personally involved in the Chapman-gate Scandal, I’m stuck with dobbing in senior SAPOL officers by filing the genocide complaint Commissioner Stevens. That is PLAN ZZZ999 option, i.e. my no other choice option. Not exactly ideal, but better than not filing any complaint and letting more people be intimidated, defrauded and randomly murdered by Scomo’s unconstitutionally elected brigade.

 

THE COMPLAINT:

Ronald Medlicott

40 Siddall Road

Elizabeth Vale SA 5112

Ph: (08) 8255 3638

Mobile: 04386 26811

19th October 2018

Attn:                Commissioner Grant Stevens

                        South Australia Police

                        100 Carrington Street

                        ADELAIDE SA 5000

Dear Commissioner Stevens,

Re: The contents of Express Post envelope 60538616506095, ‘Chapman-gate’ and other issues of national significance.

In order to assist any person who may have valid legal reasons to subpoena the contents of Express Post envelope 60538616506095, or who may wish to subpoena and cross examine you on your responses to the information provided in this envelope, the following content list is provided:

  1. This covering letter of 10 pages and 5,241 words;

  2. The Emcott Report, Issues Paper #42 – Chapman-gate: A public request to the South Australian Police to investigate the Chapman-gate scandal and to consider relevant statute laws and case law precedents, and other significant facts and issues;

  3. Appended within Issues Paper #42 are the following documents:

  4. Four statutory declarations concerning issues of grave national significance;

  5. A cover page of the Hansard Minutes for the Australian Senate’s Community Affairs Reference Committee hearing held on the 8th March 2017 and a copy of page 14 from the Minutes;

  6. A cover page of the Hansard Minutes for the Australian Senate’s Community Affairs Reference Committee hearing held on the 18th May 2017 and a copy of page 48 from these Minutes;

  7. Centrelink document C10/1866;

  8. Centrelink document LEX 21021

  9. Senate EWRE Committee letter dated 2 March 2006

  10. SAPOL correspondence dated 23 May 2011.

  11. A video DVD of 55 minutes duration titled “The Emcott Report. The Brandis Confession; Genocide – Australia’s ‘irrelevant’ homicides”;

  12. A video DVD of 57 minutes duration titled “The Emcott Report. ROBO-TALK 4th edition. A video submission to the ICAC concerning the concealment of officially “irrelevant” homicides.

Although the issues addressed in this document deal with serious violations of the law, in order to possibly reduce the rate at which vulnerable people are menaced, intimidated, exploited, defrauded, recklessly endangered and randomly murdered, the text of this communication has already been has been placed in the public domain prior to being express posted to you.

It was my intention to make a submission to the South Australian independent Commissioner Against Corruption, but that action has had to suspended due to what I colloquially call “The Chapman-gate Scandal.” As I pedantically point out in the first 33-pages of Issues Paper #42, I have grave concerns over the legality of the way in which both Commissioner Lander and the South Australian Solicitor-General have been involved in an action that, based upon facts currently in the public domain, was most probably an unlawful act that Commissioner Lander should have immediately reported to SAPOL. His apparent failure to uphold a law that he is supposed to enforce, calls into question the integrity of both the Office of Public Integrity and the personal integrity of Commissioner Lander.

These questions of integrity are a valid issue for public concern and under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act of 21012, the most appropriate public authority to conduct an impartial investigation of these complex legal issues is SAPOL. The “other issues” are matters of fact that I had hoped that Commissioner Lander would be able to investigate as they involve acts of omission and/or acts of commission by at least 12 South Australian public officials who are appear to be involved in the concealment of the worst mass fraud and serial murder since federation on the 1st January 1901. These public officials include politicians, prosecutors, police officers and other high profile public servants. The following text of Section 257 of the South Australian Criminal Law consolidation Act (1935) is presented proof that I understand the gravity of these allegations:

257—Criminal defamation

(1) A person who, without lawful excuse, publishes defamatory matter concerning another living person—

(a) knowing the matter to be false or being recklessly indifferent as to whether the matter is true or false; and

(b) intending to cause serious harm, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether the publication of the defamatory matter will cause serious harm, to a person (whether the person defamed or not),

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

In addition, I include Section 42 of the Police Complaints and Discipline Act (2016):

42—False or misleading statements

A person must not—

(a)        make a statement knowing that it is false or misleading in a material particular (whether by reason of the inclusion or omission of a particular) in information provided under this Act; or

(b)        make a complaint or report under this Act knowing that there are no grounds for the making of the complaint or report.

Maximum penalty: $10 000 or imprisonment for 2 years.

“See no Evil”: You may obtain immediate insight into my concerns about SAPOL’s role in the randomly lethal systemic crimes being perpetrated against welfare recipients by reading the April 2011 Record of Interview between Detective Superintendent Grant Moyle and myself.

The quickest and most effective way to do this is to find the nearest blank sheet of paper because there should be no record of an interview because Superintendent Moyle never interviewed me to obtain a detailed information or physical evidence; therefore, if a record exists, it is a faked record.

As you will see from the content of The Brandis Confession video and the Hansard Minutes extracts, which provide appalling 20-20 hindsight, not interviewing me was a serious legal blunder that may have resulted in an unbelievably unimaginable number of preventable crimes, including an undisclosed number of culpable homicides that I believe may now number in the thousands.

At http://www.uslegal.com the following definition of the crime known as Burking is given:

“Burking means the crime of murdering a person, ordinarily by smothering, for the purpose of selling the corpse. The term derives its name from the method William Burke and William Hare, the Scottish murder team of the 18th century, used to kill their victims during the West Port murders. They realized that they could provide fresher bodies to medical schools for research by taking people who were intoxicated and suffocating them because they could not resist. That became known as burking.”

Whilst I am sure that you are aware of that form of murder and the term ‘Burking’, which was an issue in Titlow v. Burt, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111459 (D. Mich. 2010). However, I prefer to use a simpler definition of this type murder, i.e. “Any murder that does not appear to be an unlawful death”. This latter definition describes what, upon investigation by appropriately briefed homicide investigators, may be relevant for 100,000 or more preventable homicides that have been occurring over the last 30 – 40 years as a direct consequence of the enforcement of recklessly dangerous welfare laws, policies and practices that have violated a range of civil rights including constitutional rights, procedural fairness rights, human rights, e.g. the right to life, and also criminal statute laws that are intended to protect people from such recklessly dangerous criminal abuses.

In R v White; SADC 33, (3 March 2014), paragraph 5 of the Judge Barrett’s findings contained the statement, “Constable Bretag agreed in cross-examination that the purpose of stopping people heading for the address was to get their details and thus create an opportunity to consider whether he would be able to search them or not. He said “That’s policing in general.” Although neither Constable Bretag nor yourself may appreciate it, since Constable Bretag’s actions closely mirror the unlawful actions of successive federal governments over the last 30-40 years, I believe that the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” deaths caused by the deliberate violation of constitutional, legal and human rights by successive federal governments and government agencies, e.g. the Department of Human Services, means that, like Burking murders, these murders require a unique classification, and it is my belief that the descriptive terms ‘Bretag murders’, or ‘Bretaging’ are appropriate terms to use to describe our nation’s “appropriate compliance measures” murders .

The scale of the probable ‘all-causes’ death toll, which IH&W and ABS statistics indicate could range anywhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000, has occurred because of the unique way in which these deaths have been presented to the public and law enforcement authorities. Speaking to leaders of the SS at Posen in 1943, Heinrich Himmler said “This is a glorious page in our history and one that has never been written … We had a moral right, we had a duty, to destroy this people which wanted to destroy us … All in all, we can say that we have fulfilled this most difficult duty for the love of our people. And our spirit, our soul, our character has not suffered injury from it.” (Nuremberg Document PS1919.)

69 years later, when speaking at the London Institute of Economic Affairs on the 17th April 2012, Joe Hockey expressed similar ideologically based holocaust-driving views, i.e. “The entitlements bestowed on tens of millions of people by successive governments, fuelled by short-term electoral cycles and the politics of outbidding your opponents is, in essence, undermining our ability to ensure democracy, fair

representation and economic sustainability for future generations.” … “It is ironic that the entitlements system seems to be the most obvious and prevalent in some of the most democratic societies.”

Joe Hockey’s statement was at odds with the Parliament’s constitutional obligations under s. 51 (xxxiii) and s.51 (xxiiiA) of the constitution to provide welfare allowances. His comments are evidence of a tendency by some politicians to place their ideological beliefs ahead of their legal obligations. On the 20th February 2017, Senator George Brandis attempted to justify Centrelink’s fatal ‘mistakes’ with the statement “But, we need appropriate compliance measures”, a justification that was totally inconsistent with the reckless indifference provisions in Section 31 of the SA Work Health & Safety Act (2011) and the homicide provisions in sections 12A and 13 (7) of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935). The statement was also totally inconsistent with Commissioner Ian Hanger’s statement in 14.73.2 of the HIP Report that “Risk cannot be abrogated—Government must recognise that as much as it might seek to do so, risk cannot be abrogated. The responsibility of Government is to care for its citizens and to exercise care and diligence to do everything reasonable to ensure citizens are not placed in danger by its actions, particularly risk of death and serious injury.”

The reality of the “terrible human consequences” of Centrelink’s alleged “mistakes” was emphasized by the following by Ms. Lisa Newman during the 8th March 2017 CARC hearing, i.e. “DHS staff—our members—want to help customers, and that is why they find it so distressing to see their department putting customers at an increased risk of depression, decreased motivation, self-harm and even suicide.”

On the 18th May 2010, in C10/1866, Assistant Secretary Neill Skill wrote:

“Centrelink collects compliance data on behalf of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Centrelink does not collect ‘Post Breaching Terminal Outcomes statistics’ and is therefore unable to assist with your request for this information.”

Exactly 7 years later, on the 18th May 2017, the Secretary of the Department of Human Services, Kathryn Campbell, told the Community Affairs Reference Committee:

“It is quite difficult if we are not informed that a person has died. We work very diligently with state and territory governments to ensure that we are capturing information about deaths. But, sadly, there are so many recipients in the systems it is the case that sometimes we are writing to people who are no longer alive.” [Hansard Minutes, page 48, paragraph 3: Community Affairs Reference Committee.]

These statements by Senator Brandis, Assistant Secretary Skill, Secretary Campbell and Lisa Newman clearly indicate that fatalities are occurring and that there is no preemptive systemic monitoring and reporting of the randomly lethal impact of welfare policies and practices, a legal obligation that as is required under commonly-worded Work Health and Safety Acts of Australian States and Territories:

South Australia Work Health and Safety Act 2012

31—Reckless conduct—Category 1

(1) A person commits a Category 1 offence if—

(a) the person has a health and safety duty; and

(b) the person, without reasonable excuse, engages in conduct that exposes an individual to whom that duty is owed to a risk of death or serious injury or illness; and

(c) the person is reckless as to the risk to an individual of death or serious injury or illness.

Maximum penalty:

in the case of an offence committed by an individual (other than as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking)—$300, 000 or 5 years imprisonment or both;

(b) in the case of an offence committed by an individual as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking—$600, 000 or 5 years imprisonment or both;

(c) in the case of an offence committed by a body corporate—$3, 000, 000.

Note 31(1)(c): “reckless as to the risk to an individual of death or serious injury or illness.”

Whatever they may be, “appropriate compliance measures” that ignore constitutional obligations, common law rights and statute law obligations are not a reasonable excuse for ‘mistakes’ that randomly kill innocent people who have done no wrong. The dismissal of these deaths as “irrelevant” and the failure to monitor the foreseeably lethal consequences of inhumane, unconstitutional policies and practices is Reckless Conduct. It is also extreme recklessness that over a period of time measured in decades, despite questions about the rising death toll being raised, no-one who owed “a health and safety duty” (of care) to welfare recipients, e.g. the Federal Parliament, Assistant Secretary Neill Skill, and Secretary Kathryn Campbell, implemented appropriate procedures to monitor the randomly lethal impact of welfare policies and report these fatalities in real time to the responsible Minister as per Ian Hanger’s recommendations in Section 14.6.9 of his findings in the HIP Royal Commission report. Under Secretary Campbell’s administrative leadership, the recklessly indifferent, depraved heart solution to the problem of suicides caused by Centrelink’s ‘skip-the-courts’ punitive policies and practices was to tell traumatized clients to “Call Lifeline”.

The best estimate of the number of deaths caused by the “not a bad thing” penalties is found in the 2nd appeal of AAT case 2016/5334,which was  lodged with the Sydney branch of the Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal on the 21st February 2017, i.e. the day after the ABC’s broadcast of the Brandis Confession and two weeks before Lisa Newman testified at the Senate’s CALC hearing.

“If I am correct, over a time frame measured in decades, the Australian Federal Parliament has deliberately raped the civil rights of 4 – 5 million vulnerable Australians and as a direct consequence of this systematic rape of rights, the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll caused by this ravaging of civil rights may be close to, or even exceed,100,000 in number. Theoretically, it could even be the unthinkable, i.e. close to 1,000,000 dead.”

Commissioner Stevens, whatever your gut-reaction response to that statement may be, you need to acknowledge the matter of fact that, Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, the lawyer representing the Federal Government, could have, but did not, contest that statement, possibly to avoid having to disclose this very credible and significant  information to the Federal Court in any follow-up appeal process.

3 years earlier, during the 28th November 2014 AAT hearing of case 2014/2456, the following statement, which was based upon information in government statistical reports, was made:

“In the 10-year period from 1st January 1997 until the 31st December 2006, there were 20,914 suicides*; a significant percentage of which were unemployed people. [i.e. 1 in 3] It is not possible to state precisely how many were post breaching fatalities because Centrelink does not collect the data, the Federal Parliament has secretly classified the death toll as “confidential” and “irrelevant”… the Australian Federal Police has refused to investigate [these deaths] because of the “gravity/sensitivity”. [*Note; due to a miscalculation, the more accurate figure of 23,254 suicides was not stated.]

Perhaps because the statistics were based on data in ABS and AIHW reports, Ms. Solene Yik Long, the lawyer representing the government did not contest that statement. However, like the EWRE Committee in 2006, Ms. Long dismissed the deaths as “irrelevant”.  Ms. Long’s “irrelevant” email was forwarded to the presiding AAT Conference Registrar, Senior Member Walsh, who was asked to ensure the full disclosure of this unreported death toll. During this ‘skip-the-courts’ and ‘skip-the-withheld evidence’ appeal on the 28th November 2014, Senior Member Walsh was urged to seek disclosure of the “irrelevant” death toll before making any determination of the issues.

On the 5th December 2014, Senior Member Walsh’s finding were published at: http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA/2014/904.html

Completely ignoring the possibility that more than 7,700 unemployed people may have been killed by the Howard Government’s policies and practices, at paragraph 42, Senior Member Walsh wrote:

“Ms Locke’s contention that she acted in reliance of incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials security recipients. This circumstance is not so unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance” for the purpose of

s 1237AAD(b) of the SSA.”

As can be seen from Senior Member Walsh’ finding, Centrelink’s “mistakes”, which can be randomly fatal, are:

  1. not so unusual;

  2. uncommon;

  3. exceptional;

  4. markedly different from the usual run of cases;

  5. or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance.”

Senior Member Walsh’s response in disregarding the “irrelevant” death toll was a total rejection of Commissioner’s Ian Hanger’s finding at 14.7.3.2 of the HIP Report, i.e. that governments cannot abrogate their responsibility for any actions that cause death or injury. Given that this Royal Commission report was issued just 3 months earlier Ms. Walsh’s disregard for this finding was an extremely significant act. Of perhaps even more significant today, in February 2015, when the then Social Services Minister, Scott Morrison, was asked to review the procedural irregularities that were the hallmark of this ‘Kangaroo Court’ appeal, he engaged in a voluntary physical act of omission by doing nothing, an executive decision that allowed the “irrelevant” death toll to continue to rise.

Section 5AA (2) of the South Australian Criminal law Consolidation Act (1935) states:

“A person is taken to know a particular fact if the person, knowing of the possibility that it is true, is reckless as to whether it is true or not.”

This statutory provision means that the question as to who knew about the deaths and did nothing to prevent further loss of life is a critical question of law. Apart from the people already identified in my comments, there are many people who have known about the potentially fatal harms inherent in our nation’s federal welfare policies and practices:

    1. In 2003, both John Howard and Mal Brough knew of my concerns but took no action.

    2. In November 2005 the Senate’s Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee (Leg-Con) knew and after secretly classifying  Submission 287 as “confidential”, immediately mis-used their Parliamentary Privilege powers and issued a ‘don’t copy, don’t tell’ suppression order.

    3. In November 2005 the Senate’s Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Committee (EWRE) also knew and in January 2006 and March 2006, dismissed the growing death toll as “irrelevant” and mis-used Parliamentary Privilege powers and issued yet another ‘don’t copy, don’t tell’ suppression order.

    4. In September 2009, Kevin Rudd and Quentin Bryce were provided with a detailed briefing paper titled “Fair game, Dead Meat”; neither took any action to stem the growing death toll.

    5. In March 2010, the Senate’s Environment, Communications & Arts Committee (ECA) ignored Term of Reference #3 into the Home Improvement Program disaster, i.e. “Any other matters” and falsely claimed that the growing death toll was “outside the terms of reference”. [I kid you not!] In accordance with what now appears to Standard Operating Procedure in regard to welfare penalties fatalities, the ECA Committee also mis-used the Parliamentary Privilege powers and issued yet another ‘don’t copy, don’t tell’ suppression order.

    6. Commissioner Stevens, in raising these issues with you I am violating a ‘hat-trick’ of Senate suppression orders that I believe were issued for the express purpose of concealing the scale of the serial murders of a still secretly classified and unreported number of welfare recipients.

    7. Although Neill Skill stated in his “Centrelink does not collect…” letter, C10/1866, that my email to Nicola Roxon was the reason for his letter to me, the fact is that either via email or via on-line contact pages, in March 2010, I had contacted all 226 Members of the Federal Parliament expressing my grave concerns about the secrecy that surrounded the growing, officially “irrelevant”, death toll. Thus Neill Skill’s letter constitutes the only formal response from any of the 226 Members of Parliament who created the unconstitutional, civil rights violating laws, policies and procedures that still drive a humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions.

    8. In May 2011, I hand-delivered updated copies of the edition of the “Fair Game – Dead Meat” issues paper that Superintendent Moyle had received in April 2011, to the electorate offices of Christopher Pyne, Senator Nick Xenophon, Senator Hanson-Young and Kate Ellis.

    9. Despite her statutory and common law duty of care to the people of South Australia, Senator Hanson-Young’s response was to refer the matter to a Western Australian senator, Rachel Siewert, who apparently took no action to prevent further loss of life.

    10. The responses from Senator Xenophon, Christopher Pyne and Kate Ellis is perhaps best described as “a voluntary act of omission”, i.e. there was no response to my concerns.

  1. In January 2013, I wrote to all 12 South Australian senators and to Nick Champion, Christopher Pyne, Kate Ellis and Stephen Georganas expressing my very clear viewpoint that the deaths of welfare recipients in South Australia were almost certainly felony murders. The only response to these letters was a stock form letter acknowledge from the office of Mr. Georganas.

  1. At approximately 10:30AM on the morning of the 31st August 2013, I had a chance encounter with Senator Xenophon outside a pre-polling station located on Elizabeth Way at Elizabeth City Centre. After waiting for Senator Xenophon to distribute boxes of ‘How to vote’ guides to his supporters, I approached him and asked him what his response was to the High Court’s May 8th 2013 “statutory fiction” decision and for an explanation as to why he had not contacted me to discuss my concerns about the secretly classified death toll.

  2. Senator Xenophon responded by saying “My staff did not tell me”. He then asked me to contact his office manager, “after the election”. He carefully spelling out the name of his office manager, i.e. “S-K-Y-E”.

  3. Not satisfied to wait until after the election, later that day I sent an email to Senator Xenophon’s office requesting an appointment as soon as possible. I promptly received an automated response to the email, but “Skye” never made the requested appointment.

  4. If “Skye” was the pseudo-Senator, Skye Kakoschke-Moore, then it means that on the 18th May 2017, when she inquired about the attempt to collect alleged debts from dead welfare recipients, Skye Kakoschke-Moore had been concealing from the committee her prior knowledge that the unreported death toll may involve many thousands of fatalities.

  5. In November 2015, I filed an appeal on behalf of Mrs. Locke with the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman that cited both Hellicar at 141 – 143 and Bhardwaj at 51 – 53.

  6. The submission was held up for a week in the Adelaide office and Mrs. Locke was informed that her appeal was rejected “for lack of new information”.

  7. In December 2015, this response was referred to both Justice Duncan Kerr, the President of the AAT, and to Ms. Vicky Parker, the Chief Legal Counsel for the Department of Human Services, (DHS). These submissions also cited the Hellicar and Bhardwaj determinations.

  8. Justice Kerr did not respond, but Ms. Alice Linacre, the Acting Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS did so in a letter dated 7th January 2016.

  9. In what I believe may have been a deliberate violation of Section 142 (2) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), Ms. Linacre arbitrarily ignored the binding Hellicar determination that disputed decisions by regulators are a matter for the courts and unilaterally rejected the appeal lodged on behalf of Mrs. Locke.

  10. With the exception of the AAT 2016/5334 appeal, in which I made it quite clear that Hellicar and Bhardwaj were High Court decisions that could not be arbitrarily ignored, I am unaware of any other cases where Centrelink officials have complied with these High Court precedents.

Yesterday, the 17th October 2018, I provided advice to a welfare recipient who had had her welfare payment arbitrarily cancelled without any court determination of the facts. In the mid-afternoon, I downloaded a Centrelink letter to my wife that contained a statement that appears to deliberately ignore the Hellicar decision, “Contact us and ask us for a review of the decision. We will change it if it is wrong”. In the light of Ms. Newman’s testimony, the veracity of that statement is highly questionable. However, the following statement appears to a blatant violation of provisions contained in Section 140 of the SA Criminal code, i.e. ‘Dishonest dealings with documents.

Condensed, this code states:”For the purposes of this section, a document is false if the document gives a misleading impression about the nature, validity or effect of the document; or any fact (such as, for example, the identity, capacity or official position of an apparent signatory to the document) on which its validity or effect may be dependent; or the existence or terms of a transaction to which the document appears to relate”

The Centrelink letter stated “Contact the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) if you do not agree with the review officer’s decision.”

The above statement is highly deceptive and misleading for it totally ignores a binding decision in Hellicar, which condensed to the relevant key points in paragraphs 141 – 143 stated:

[At 141] And insofar as the duty was said to stem from a proposition “that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth, in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred”, that premise is false for at least two reasons.[At 141] First, the proposition ignores that even a criminal trial “is not, and does not purport to be, an examination and assessment of all the information and evidence that exists, bearing upon the question of guilt or innocence” Each side in a criminal trial “is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue, the evidence which it or he will call, and what questions whether in chief or in cross-examination shall be asked; always, of course, subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility”. Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent requirements.

[At 143] Second, the proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory agency relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require the regulatory agency to make some final judgment about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.

In the nutshell, once a Centrelink decision is challenged it is a matter for the courts to determine the facts of the matter. Once that occurs, a Centrelink official may make a decision based upon the court’s findings and if a welfare recipient does not agree with that determination, the AAT may arbitrate the Centrelink decision.

In the Bhardwaj case, at paragraph 51 Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron ruled that “A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all.” This viewpoint was re-stated in paragraph 53, i.e. As already pointed out, 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. Thus, not only is there no legal impediment under the general law to a decision-maker making such a decision but, as a matter of strict legal principle, he or she is required to do so. And that is so, regardless of s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act.

The Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions, which even Justice Kerr, a Federal Court judge deliberately ignored, require a court decision as the first step in a regulator making a fair and just decision.

The AAT has no jurisdiction to make any decision in a contested decision until such time as a legally valid determination is made and that firstly requires a court finding as to the facts of the matter upon which a fair and just decision can be made. Whilst ‘skipping-the-courts’ is very convenient, and incredibly cost effective as it saves an average of $25,000 per appeal (in 2013 costings) it is a criminal abuse of power and any fatalities caused by such criminal actions are, in South Australia, felony murders as per the court’s determination in R v. Finch (2005)

One a decision is contested, the first question to be asked by an AAT conference registrar must be “What was was the court’s findings in this matter?” If the legal representative of the Secretary cannot present any findings, then the only decision that an AAT conference registrar can make, paraphrasing Bhardwaj, is that since the “decision involves jurisdictional error , it is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded as no decision at all” [and] “the duty to make a decision remains unperformed.”

In South Australia, any and all other decisions that exploit the ignorance of welfare recipients who may challenge a Centrelink decision are violating Section 140 (4) of the SA criminal code:

A person is guilty of an offence if the person dishonestly engages in conduct to which this section applies intending—

(a) one of the following:

(i) to deceive another, or people generally, or to facilitate deception of another, or people generally, by someone else;

(ii) to exploit the ignorance of another, or the ignorance of people generally, about the true state of affairs;

It is my clearly stated viewpoint that over a time frame measured in decades, the Australian Federal Parliament has deliberately exploited the ignorance, poverty and other vulnerabilities of welfare recipients and in doing so has emotionally traumatized, defrauded, recklessly endangered and randomly killed innocent people. I further content that the ability to successfully engage in this conduct over a period of decades in no-way provides any legitimacy to these randomly lethal criminal abuses of power.  I have intentionally included 5AA (2) of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935) code in this covering letter for the express purpose of restricting your lawful options in dealing with the information that I have provided.

Option #1: If you have reasonable grounds to believe that the information provided is maliciously false and misleading, then you must charge and prosecute me for violations of Section 257 of the SA criminal code and Section 42 of the Police Complaints & Discipline Act (2016). 

Option #2: Verify the facts provided and set up a task force to determine just how “terrible” are the “terrible human consequences” of the Federal Parliament’s “appropriate compliance measures.”

Ronald Medlicott. [Registered Teacher and a Volunteer Lay-Advocate.]

Posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Part 51. Australia’s “irrelevant” holocaust. What His Holiness, Pope Francis, and the world’s Catholic community need to know about the sentencing of Archbishop Wilson.

Express Post letter to Judge Stone

Magistrate Robert Stone would have been faced with a serious legal problem with the sentencing of Archbishop Wilson because the content of this letter. As the content below reveals, if the Newcastle Local Court registrar, Damian Bultitude, had not blocked this letter, Archbishop Wilson’s legal counsel, Ian Temby QC, could have been used this evidence to press for a mistrial on the basis of ‘Manifest Ostensible Bias’, a case-killer procedural fairness issue that renders prosecutions null and void.

The shortlink URL for this posting is: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1dW

 

Note the serial number, date and time of posting.

The express post letter was delivered to the Elizabeth Vale post office at 12.31 PM on the 29th June 2018. This meant that delivery would have occurred on Monday,2nd July 2018, i.e. the day BEFORE Judge Stone handed down his sentencing decision in the Archbishop Wilson case. Had Judge Stone received the letter, its contents would probably have undermined the Crown case against Archbishop Wilson.

The court registrar, Damien Bultitude, blocked evidence that could have been used to have the charges against Archbishop Wilson dismissed.

Unfortunately, as the above undated letter makes quite clear, the Newcastle Local Court registrar, Damien Bultitude, put court policies and practices ahead of Section 319 of the New South Wales Crimes Act, a statute that deal with perverting the course of justice:

Section 319 – General offence of perverting the course of justice.

A person who does any act, or makes any omission, intending in any way to pervert the course of justice, is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.have

Oops!

Archbishop Wilson: Facts not yet in evidence.

The letter to Judge Stone consisted of a cover letter, a copy of the email to Pauline Hanson, the text of which can be read in the previous Part 50 posting, and a dozen other documents that made it quite clear that the Australian Federal Parliament and a number of federal and State agencies were concealing genocide and crimes against humanity. In reading the letter to Judge Stone, the following statement by the Crown prosecutor, Gareth Harrison is of critical importance as it undermines the prosecution of Archbishop Wilson because the State-sanctioned-slaughter of welfare recipients are also a decades long State Secret and Prosecutor Harrison’s statement is as valid for the concealment of those murders as it is for Archbishop Wilson’s alleged crime:

Prosecutor Harrison:

“The Crown’s submission is that there is a strong need for denunciation and general deterrence in this case, he lied. And the root of each of those lies is the unflinching loyalty that he has to the Catholic Church and protecting it at all costs. This wasn’t a split-second decision to conceal something, this was a decision which was made over a period of time when there was an opportunity for rational contemplation. What we have here is a motivation to protect an institution over an extended period of time. He thought he’d gotten away with this … for all those years he thought he’d gotten away with it.”

The Stone Letter:

To:       Magistrate Robert Stone

Newcastle Local Courts

PO BOX 388

NEWCASTLE  NSW 2300

Dear Sir,

Re: Crown v. Archbishop Philip Wilson; facts not yet in evidence.

The following information enclosed with this letter is unlikely to have been considered by either the Crown prosecutor, Gareth Harrison, or by Mr. Ian Temby QC, since much of the information is officially unreported and classified confidential by the Senate on more than one occasion.

It is not for me to tell you how to use this information or to make any judgments concerning the guilt or innocence of Arch-Bishop Wilson. However, having stated that viewpoint, I do believe that it would be appropriate to make this information available to both Mr. Harrison and Mr. Temby for their professional consideration.

 

As you are aware, Mr. Harrison made the following statement during a hearing on or about the 19th June 2018:

“The Crown’s submission is that there is a strong need for denunciation and general deterrence in this case, he lied. And the root of each of those lies is the unflinching loyalty that he has to the Catholic Church and protecting it at all costs. This wasn’t a split-second decision to conceal something, this was a decision which was made over a period of time when there was an opportunity for rational contemplation. What we have here is a motivation to protect an institution over an extended period of time. He thought he’d gotten away with this … for all those years he thought he’d gotten away with it.”

You are probably unaware of the following statement by the former attorney-general, George Brandis QC for you would almost certainly have referred the issue to the New South Wales Police had you been aware of this tacit confession to what may well prove to be the worse cases of mass fraud and serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia; a time frame that post-dated the death of 90% of indigenous population prior to federal in 1901.

Whether or not they would have investigated these crimes is questionable; to date, despite the irrefutable evidence, no police force in Australia that I have raised these crimes with has acted to bring to a halt the menacing, intimidation, exploitation, defrauding, endangerment and killing of welfare recipients.

On 20th February 2017, Attorney-general Brandis stated:

“Now, this system involves a review of potentially millions of transfer payments, so off course there will be mistakes made, and I agree with what Piers Ackermann said, that when mistakes are made, and they have terrible human consequences, then off course that’s a tragedy. But we do have to have appropriate compliance measures and the idea of data matching, introduce by Hawke and the idea of automated letters being sent to people when there is a discrepancy evident from the data-matching between the ATO data and the Centrelink data; it was introduced by you, is not a bad system. The methodology that has been used by this government is the same methodology that we inherited from you.”

Attorney-General George Brandis QC,

Australian Broadcasting Commission #QandA programme

20th February 2017

That statement, broadcast on a nationally viewed ABC program, #QandA, was a very public admission that the Model Litigant Rules, procedural fairness principles, human rights obligations, and even criminal statutes, were being disregarded. Paraphrased, Senator Brandis effectively admitted to the following:

  • Centrelink is extremely busy, i.e. “millions of transfer payments” that are based upon the information input with some 50 million keystrokes of manual data entry per day;
  • Having reduced staffing levels by 5,000, Centrelink staff are so busy that “…of course there will be mistakes made”, e. systemic mistakes are inevitable;
  • “… mistakes are made, and they have terrible human consequences”, e. a currently unreported, classified, unknown number of deaths have occurred;
  • However, these officially “irrelevant” fatalities are justifiable, at least to Senator Brandis, because “…we do have to have appropriate compliance measures”;
  • These fatalities are an acceptable consequence, i.e. “…the idea of data matching… is not a bad system”, a statement that may explain why these fatalities are deemed to be “irrelevant” by the 2006 Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Committee;
  • As Senator Brandis revealed, the Department of Human Services has been skipping the courts and arbitrarily making randomly fatally decisions that are in law, no decision at all, for a very long time, i.e. “introduced by Hawke… The methodology that has been used by this government is the same methodology that we inherited from you.”

On the 21st February 2017:

The above statement is a matter of fact; so also, is the following statement contained in the 2nd appeal Statement of Facts and Issues for AAT Case 2016/5334. This was submitted via email at 1.46 PM. Adelaide local time, to the federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 21st February 2017, i.e. approximately 16 hours after Attorney-General Brandis made the above statement:

“If I am correct, over a time frame measured in decades, the Australian Federal Parliament has deliberately raped the civil rights of 4 – 5 million vulnerable Australians and as a direct consequence of this systematic rape of rights, the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll caused by this ravaging of civil rights may be close to, or even exceed, 100,000 in number. Theoretically, it could even be the unthinkable, i.e. close to 1,000,000 dead.”

Any damning statement like that being tabled in a federal tribunal should not go unchallenged as it is accusing the Parliament of massive human rights violations on a holocaust scale.

However:

On the 22nd February 2017, Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, a government lawyer based in the Freedom of Information & Litigation Branch of the Department of Human Services was the legally appointed representative of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, the Respondent in the AAT 2016/5334 appeal. Since Ms. Ulrick had direct access to the Department of Human Services ISIS database, she was ideally placed to refute the allegations made by querying this database.

What Ms. Ulrick found in the ISIS database is unknown as she promptly prepared and issued a ‘Without Prejudice’ proffer to the Application that withdrew the cancellation of welfare benefits and made restitution of withheld benefits. Given that the death toll was classified as “confidential” by the Senate’s Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee, a.k.a. Leg-Con, in November 2005 and had twice been dismissed as “irrelevant” by the Secretary of the Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Committee, a.k.a EWRE, in January and March 2006, it was highly unlikely that the Secretary would have been willing to debate the scale of this undisclosed, officially “irrelevant” death toll in the Federal Court.

Governments that save taxpayers monies by menacing, intimidating, defrauding and murdering innocent, vulnerable people epitomize the meaning of unconstitutional “bad government”.

Mr. Harrison’s statement on page 1 of this communication, “This wasn’t a split-second decision to conceal something, this was a decision which was made over a period of time when there was an opportunity for rational contemplation”. Is as valid for the decades-long senseless persecution, exploitation and slaughter of welfare recipients as it was in regard to Arch-Bishop Wilson’s alleged concealment of the sexual abuse of a child. The deaths of welfare recipients as a result of “skip-the-courts” tortious conduct by the Federal Government-of-the-day against welfare recipients is Australia’s best kept secret, or at least it was until Attorney-General Brandis made his “terrible human consequences” statement.

Whatever the “appropriate compliance measures” may be that have been in place for several decades, they most definitely are not “appropriate”.

Statute law and the ““appropriate compliance measures”

Senator Brandis attempted to justify the “terrible human consequences” of Centrelink’s “mistakes” claiming “…we do have to have appropriate compliance measures.” An issue for every police force and public prosecutor within the jurisdiction of the commonwealth of Australia is the statement “…we do have to have appropriate compliance measures.”

 Just how “appropriate” is a mistake-ridden system that randomly kills innocent people who have done no wrong? How many “terrible human consequences.” i.e. deaths, have occurred raises the question as to whether or not “appropriate compliance measures” is, in law, legally valid grounds that justifies these deaths? In South Australia, the determination as to whether-or-not these deaths are a statute law question for consideration under Section 31of the Work Health & Safety Act (2012)

31—Reckless conduct—Category 1

(1) A person commits a Category 1 offence if—

(a) the person has a health and safety duty; and

(b) the person, without reasonable excuse, engages in conduct that exposes an individual to whom that duty is owed to a risk of death or serious injury or illness; and

(c) the person is reckless as to the risk to an individual of death or serious injury or illness.

Maximum penalty:

(a) in the case of an offence committed by an individual (other than as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking)—$300 000 or 5 years imprisonment or both;

Quite clearly, these deaths are not justified under Section 31 of the Work health & Safety Act. However, the question as to whether or not they are violations of criminal codes is determined by a number of provisions within the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935). The key provisions as to whether or not “appropriate compliance measures” constitutes legally valid grounds that justify these deaths is Section 15 of this criminal code, which deals with deaths in defence of life and property:

15—Self defence

(1) It is a defence to a charge of an offence if—

(a) the defendant genuinely believed the conduct to which the charge relates to be necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose; and

(b) the conduct was, in the circumstances as the defendant genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat that the defendant genuinely believed to exist1.

(2) It is a partial defence to a charge of murder (reducing the offence to manslaughter) if

(a) the defendant genuinely believed the conduct to which the charge relates to be necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose; but

(b) the conduct was not, in the circumstances as the defendant genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat that the defendant genuinely believed to exist.2

(3) For the purposes of this section, a person acts for a defensive purpose if the person acts—

(a) in self defence or in defence of another; or

(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful imprisonment of himself, herself or another.

 In my home State of South Australia, these are the lawful grounds that justify acts that result in a death or multiple deaths. It is quite clear that the “terrible human consequences” are not justified under the laws that apply in South Australia.

I will not insult your intelligence by citing the comparable New South Wales statutes.

Since you have never made any public statement re the “appropriate compliance measures”, it may be reasonable for me to adduce that you are unaware of the case law precedents that I have mentioned in the Email to Senator Pauline Hanson.  Perhaps the 2 most critical decisions are Hellicar and Bhardwaj, as they provide insight into what, apart from the mounting death toll, is being ignored by the Turnbull Government and Centrelink officials:

Hellicar at 141 – 143:

  1. The Court of Appeal recorded that ASIC accepted that it had “an obligation to act fairly with respect to the conduct of the proceedings” but ASIC did not accept that its obligation to act fairly required it to call Mr Robb as its witness. The Court of Appeal concluded, however, that Mr Robb should have been called by ASIC. The Court said:

 “A body in the position of ASIC, owing the obligation of fairness to which it was subject, was obliged to call a witness of such central significance to critical issues that had arisen in the proceedings. The scope of its powers and the public interest dimensions of its functions, most relevantly with respect to ensuring proper internal governance of corporations and that the market for securities in shares was fully informed, was such that resolution of the civil penalty proceedings required it to call, if only with a view to showing (if it were the case) that he could not in fact recall anything on the factual issues and for cross examination by the [defendants], a witness of such potential importance.”

How this duty which the Court of Appeal identified ASIC as having differs in any relevant respect from the duty of a Crown prosecutor considered in Whitehorn and in Apostilides was not examined. And insofar as the duty was said to stem from a proposition “that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth, in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred”, that premise is false for at least two reasons.

 

  1. First, the proposition ignores that even a criminal trial “is not, and does not purport to be, an examination and assessment of all the information and evidence that exists, bearing upon the question of guilt or innocence”[133]. Each side in a criminal trial “is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue, the evidence which it or he will call, and what questions whether in chief or in cross-examination shall be asked; always, of course, subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility”. Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent requirements.
  1. Second, the proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory agency relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require the regulatory agency to make some final judgment about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority. 

Bhardwaj at [51 – 53]

Decisions involving jurisdictional error: the general law

  1. There is, in our view, no reason in principle why the general law should treat administrative decisions involving jurisdictional error as binding or having legal effect unless and until set aside. A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all. Further, there is a certain illogicality in the notion that, although a decision involves jurisdictional error, the law requires that, until the decision is set aside, the rights of the individual to whom the decision relates are or, perhaps, are deemed to be other than as recognised by the law that will be applied if and when the decision is challenged. A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.
  2. The view that a decision involving jurisdictional error does not prevent the decision-maker from correcting that error by making a later decision has been accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada. Thus, in Chandler v Alberta Association of Architects, Sopinka J, with whom Dickson CJ and Wilson J concurred, said:

 “As a general rule, once [an administrative] tribunal has reached a final decision in respect to the matter that is before it in accordance with its enabling statute, that decision cannot be revisited because the tribunal has changed its mind, made an error within jurisdiction or because there has been a change of circumstances …

To this extent, the principle of functus officio applies. It is based, however, on the policy ground which favours finality of proceedings rather than the rule which was developed with respect to formal judgments of a court whose decision was subject to a full appeal. For this reason, I am of the opinion that its application must be more flexible and less formalistic in respect to the decisions of administrative tribunals which are subject to appeal only on a point of law.” In the same case, his Lordship cited with approval a statement by McLachlin J that:

“as a matter of logic and on the authorities … a tribunal which makes a decision in the purported exercise of its power which is a nullity, may thereafter enter upon a proper hearing and render a valid decision”.

  1. In our view, logic and legal principle both direct the conclusion that the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada is correct. As already pointed out, 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. Thus, not only is there no legal impediment under the general law to a decision-maker making such a decision but, as a matter of strict legal principle, he or she is required to do so. And that is so, regardless of s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act.

This Centrelink’s human impact ‘risk assessment’ policy, which I consider to be criminal act of reckless endangerment, especially given the unknown death toll that Ms. Ulrick did not dispute may now be around the 100,000 mark, or even much higher:

 “Thank you for your letter dated 8 April 2010 to the Minister for Health and Aging, the Hon. Nicola Roxon MP and of 12 April 2010 to Centrelink regarding the consequences from breaching and compliance failures. I have been asked to respond. Please accept this as a response to both your emails.”

“Centrelink collects compliance data on behalf of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace relations (DEEWR). Centrelink does not collect ‘Post Breaching Terminal Outcome Statistics’ and therefore unable to assist you with your request for this information.”

LEGALITY, RIGHTS AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

On 20th June 2013, Justice Steven Rares presented a speech at the annual AGS Law Administrators Conference titled “Legality, Rights and Statutory Interpretation.[1]” At paragraph 82, justice Rares stated;

“Of course, Courts must determine the legal validity of any legislative or executive conduct in light of any relevant provision in a Bill of Rights.  Our legal system currently allows every court in this country, from a local court magistrate to the High Court, when exercising federal jurisdiction, to declare a law made by any parliament or under delegated legislation or any executive conduct to be constitutionally invalid.  When, particularly, the High Court makes a decision of that character, the Court can become involved in political controversy.  But, that is simply a proper and necessary outcome of the third arm of government performing its role of determining the boundaries in which the other two arms of government may or may not operate or the limits of judicial power.  That use of judicial power is itself an essential governmental function in a society operating under the rule of law.  And, when the Courts exercise their powers, under Ch III of the Constitution they must justify that exercise in proceedings that occur transparently in open court and in reasons for the judgment in which the Court decides and pronounces the law.”

When passing sentence on people convicted of serious crimes, please give very serious consideration to the failure of Australia’s criminal justice system, over a time frame measured in decades, to exercise its authority and halt a holocaust.

Yours truly,

Ronald Medlicott. [2]

Registered teacher (SA) and a volunteer lay-advocate.

 

[1] Federal Court: Rares-J-20130620.doc

[2] This communication submitted via Express post packet 604 431 11551 099

Facts not yet in evidence:

The following documents were included in the Stone letter as ‘facts not yet in evidence’. Readers should note that these documents, which identify people or organizations involved in the concealment of Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity, needs to be read in the context of Prosecutor Harrison’s previous mentioned statement, “This wasn’t a split-second decision to conceal something, this was a decision which was made over a period of time when there was an opportunity for rational contemplation. What we have here is a motivation to protect an institution over an extended period of time.”

Please remember that the email to ‘Senator’ Pauline Hanson was posted in Part 50 of this Crimes against Humanity series. In regard to the following documents please note:

  1. Who wrote the document;

  2. What was written in the document;

  3. When the document was written.

Certified Document #1: A Statutory Declaration

Since false declarations carry a 7-Year jail sentence, I did not sign this declaration for false reasons.

Certified Document #2: Judge Ian L. Gray’s letter

Someone also withheld information from Judge Gray because I had priovided details of 2 possible State sanctioned deaths that appeared to ‘Misadventure’ deaths.

Certified Document #3: The Quentin Bryce Connection

Governor-General Quentin Bryce knew about the welfare penalties deaths but failed to take action to stop these State-sanctioned murders.

Certified Document #4: “Centrelink does not collect…”

RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE; Senior Centrelink management have no knowledge of how many welfare recipients they may have killed because they avoided collecting the deadly statistical details.

Certified Document #5: “The ACMA does not investigate”

NOTE THE LAST LINE: So much for the constitutional imperative that “the laws of the commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and the people.”

Certified Document #6: Submission 287 “confidential”

Page 1 of the Senate Committee’s secret “confidential” classification of the murders of welfare recipients.

Page 2 of a Senate committee’s secret “confidential” classification of the murder of welfare recipients.

Certified Document #7  The ECA Committee cover-up

SEE NO EVIL: Was this committee cover-up a case of “We only kill ’em, not count ’em”?

Certified Document #8: SAPOL – See No Evil

SEE NO EVIL: To read Detective Superintendent Moyle’s official ‘Record of Interview” with the plaintiff, i.e. me, just grab the nearest blank sheet of A4 printer paper.

 

Certified Document #9: The High Court Cover-up

MORE SEE NO EVIL?: Surely Senior Registrar Rogers knew about every citizen’s legal rights under Section 378 of the Australian Electoral Act, i.e. the right of an Elector to make submissions to the High Court in electoral disputes. This was another case of a court registrar using their lawful powers to pervert justice by blocking evidence that the Court NEEDED TO KNOW.

Certified Document #10: 

FUNCTUS OFFICIO: The official burial of the truth. This document was the official ending to AAT  case 2016/5334. It was the successful completion of a dirty trick by a government lawyer that ensured that my request for a tally of the number of people known to have been murdered by the Australian Federal Parliament would not be disclosed to at a scheduled Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing scheduled to be held on the 6th March 2017.

Certified Document #11: See No Evil – HREOC

NO RIGHT TO LIFE: If the Australian Human rights & Equal opportunity Commission is to be believed, the menacing, intimidation and even the murder of Australia’s poor, i.e. welfare recipients. does not constitute a violation of human rights. UNREAL!

NOTE: If Rocky Clifford is correct, politicians in the Australian Federal Parliament have protected themselves by not making the murder of Australia’s poor unlawful. However, anyone charged with a culpable homicide, e.g. Murder, could use HREOC’s letter to argue a very powerful ‘MANIFEST OSTENSIBLE BIAS’ case in court, i.e. “If it OK for Centrelink to kill welfare recipients, why am I being charged with murder”?

An Certified Document #12: The New South Wales Police

SEE NO EVIL: New South Crime commission take note:- The text of this classified “CONFIDENTIAL’ police email can not be disclosed. However, if Detective Sergeant Prasad, the officer who sent this email to me, had picked the phone, an investigation in 2012 may have exposed and ended a humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions.

His Holiness, Pope Francis, hundreds of millions of devout Catholics, 25 million Australians, and every person who believes in most basic of human rights, i.e. the Right to Life and Justice, should be asking why it is okay in Australia for politicians and public servants to persecute and murder vulnerable, impoverished Australians?

Whether innocent or guilty of the charges, until that question is answered, the prosecutions of Archbishop Philip Wilson and Cardinal George Pell are a gross travesty of justice.

Ronald Medlicott – Registered teacher and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment