Part 7: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity: What are the Crimes and why are they crimes against humanity?

Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity stem from a basic set of Crown laws and international laws.

Over a period measured in decades, the constitutional rights, legal rights, and basic human rights of millions of vulnerable people have been violated. The upside for successive governments has been billions of dollars in “$avings”. The downside cost is a humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions with possibly 15,000 – 30,000 suicides and an unknown number of “Misadventure” and so-called “natural causes” deaths like the death of “Sarah”. See

The text below is in 2 parts:

  1. A short section of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.
  2. Extracts from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

These 2 sections of Australian and international law provide insight into why post breaching fatalities and Centrelink’s fraudulent tort actions to recover alleged over=payments of welfare benefits from welfare recipients are criminal acts that need to be independently investigated by the United Nations Human Rights Commission.


Division 3 and 4.

This is the federal law that deals with crimes. Divisions 3 & 4 specify in legal jargon what a crime is and the 2 basic ways a crimes can be committed.

On May 8th 2013, the High Court turfed-out the prosecution of some 15,000 welfare recipients citing as “statutory fiction” the retrospective laws were rushed through the Federal Parliament on 4th August 2011.

 In Division 3 below, the key phrase is:

3.1.2 “the law that creates the offence…”, and;

3.1.3 “the law that creates the offence…”.

3.2     “under the law creating the offence…”

     (a) “the existence of such physical elements as are, under the law creating the offence, relevant to establish guilt.”

 TRANSLATION: This jargon simply means that you can’t break the law if there is no law to break, i.e. NO LAW TO BREAK = NO CRIME.


Division 3

General 3.1   Elements

(1)  An offence consists of physical elements and fault elements.

(2)  However, the law that creates the offence may provide that there is no fault element for one or more physical elements.

             (3)  The law that creates the offence may provide different fault elements for different physical elements.

3.2   Establishing guilt in respect of offences.

                   In order for a person to be found guilty of committing an offence the following must be proved:

  • the existence of such physical elements as are, under the law creating the offence, relevant to establishing guilt;
  • in respect of each such physical element for which a fault element is required, one of the fault elements for the physical element.


In Division 4 the key phrases are:

(2)  In this Code:

“conduct ” means an act, an omission to perform an act or a state of affairs.

“engage in conduct ” means:  

  • do an act; or

omit to perform an act


TRANSLATION: there are 2 ways to break the law:

  • “an act”, i.e. do something that you should not do, e.g. drive at 80KPH in a 60 KPH zone. (This is an act of COMMISSION)
  • “omit to perform an act”, i.e. not do something that you should have done, e.g. drive through a STOP sign at 60 KPH.

Division 4 — Physical elements

  4.1   Physical elements

  • A physical element of an offence may be:
  • conduct; or
  • a result of conduct; or
  • a circumstance in which conduct, or a result of conduct, occurs.

             (2)  In this Code:

“conduct ” means an act, an omission to perform an act or a state of affairs.

“engage in conduct ” means:  

  • do an act; or
  • omit to perform an act.


Hiding Centrelink’s recordings of phone conversations between welfare recipients and call centre staff is an example of   “…an omission” or deliberating deciding to “omit to perform an act” by not providing the phone call evidence in an SSAT or an AAT tribunal trial because it would undermine the Centrelink’s case!



Download from:

  1. Australia signed the Rome Statute on 9th December 1999
  2. Australia ratified the Rome Statute by treaty on 1st July 2002
  3. The treaty came into effect on 1st September 2002, i.e. any violations of the provisions of the Rome Statute are criminal acts in Australia since that date and those responsible can be held accountable.

Article 7: Crimes against humanity

  1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

            (a)     Murder;  

            (b)     Extermination;  

            (c)     Enslavement; 

            (d)     Deportation or forcible transfer of population; 

            (e)     Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;  

         (f)     Torture;  

            (g)     Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;  

            (h)     Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; 

            (i)     Enforced disappearance of persons;  

            (j)     The crime of apartheid;  

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

  1. For the purpose of paragraph 1: 

            (a)     “Attack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack; 

            (b)     “Extermination” includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;  

            (c)     “Enslavement” means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children; 

            (d)     “Deportation or forcible transfer of population” means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; 

            (e)     “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions; 

            (f)     “Forced pregnancy” means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;  

            (g)     “Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;  

            (h)     “The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;  

            (i)     “Enforced disappearance of persons” means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.  

  1. For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term “gender” refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term “gender” does not indicate any meaning different from the above.

[ MY COMMENTS re Article 7: ]

  • Note that under Article 7 (1) (j), “apartheid” is a Crime against Humanity. From the 1970s until the 1970s, “The Stolen Generations” policies so enthusiastically supported by Australia’s major political parties, i.e. Liberal-National Coalition and the ALP, were popular “apartheid”
  • These policies existed and flourished in Australia (as did apartheid in South Africa) because the majority of voters either actively supported these polices, or passively, did not take action to oppose them.
  • The same principle now applies to the welfare penalties policies commonly referred to as “Breaching”, i.e. these unconstitutional, human rights violating laws exist today because the majority of Australian voters either approve of them or do not actively oppose them.
  • Here is a valid definition of “Breaching” that applied in 2000-2001. Today the penalty is 8 weeks instead of 13 weeks but these laws are still a human rights violation of Article 7 (1) (k):
  • “Breaching was the targeted, deliberate removal of the only means of subsistence from financially impoverished, functionally illiterate people, many of whom were emotionally fragile and potentially suicidal, so that for a period of 3 months, they were unable to meet even the most basic of their costs of living.”
  • Breaching is also a violation of Australia’s state and territory Homicide
  • Way back in 1843, an English Royal Commission came up with this somewhat wordy definition of murder:
  • The ‘heart bent on mischief’ must in this case, and it is apprehended in all others, in the absence of a special definite rule of law which defines what is meant by implied malice, consist simply in the disregard of life manifested by exposing life to peril, although no malice in the popular sense of the term exist against any individual.

CONFUSED BY THAT DEFINITION? Fortunately this Royal Commission came up with a much simpler definition that ordinary people like you and I should be able to understand:

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

Make no mistake: the laws commonly known as “Breaching”or “Serious Compliance Failure” are Crimes against Humanity because they were deliberately intended to deprive people of their only means of subsistence.

  1. Do that a 3 or 4 million times and the body count soon starts to add up as any ruthless dictatorial tyrant will tell you!
  2. The problem with a total death toll of 30,000 from 3 or 4 million deliberate acts of destitution is that it represents TOO SMALL a figure. The real death toll could be far higher!

 The 2nd Crime against Humanity.


 If the barking dog next door keeps you awake, that is a mental health issue for it is disturbing your “mental serenity”!

Tough anti-bullying laws introduced in New South Wales after a suicide driven by work-place carry a 10-year sentence.

  1. In South Australia, uploading illuminating or demeaning articles to the Internet that endanger a person’s mental health carry a 2 year sentence.
  2. However South Australia is looking at moving into line with New South Wales.
  3. Perhaps this is because new mental health research indicates that when people with Depression are demeaned or humiliated, it can trigger a suicide.
  4. One of the world’s best known case of humiliation triggering  a suicide was the 2012 suicide of Jacintha Saldanha after 2DayFM broke Australian and New South Wales telecommunications laws and recorded and broadcast a secretly recording of a conversation between Ms Saldanha and a 2DayFM radio presenter.

If you can sue for mental health/stress or be jailed for engaging in demeaning and humilating conduct, clearly Australian Federal Government policies that provoke high potential levels for suicidal behaviour have to a crime, right?

Spot on! Check out this Article in the Rome Statute:


  • Torture is defined under 7 (2) (e):
  • “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
  1. NOTE this: “the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused;”
  • Torture does not have to be physical.
  • It can be severe “EMOTIONAL” pain or “SUFFERING”.
  • If you think that deliberately depriving impoverished people of their only means of subsistence for 2 or 3 months is not about deliberately inflicting emotional pain and extreme physical suffering, the think again!
  • You do not have to inflict physical injury, a crime known as “Battery”; it can also be in the form of deliberately imposing emotional suffering or exposing people to severe hardship that may endanger their lives!
  • Note also what is known as a “Privitation clause”, i.e. a legal cop-out. “…except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions”.
  1. This legitimizes torture if the pain or suffering is caused by “lawful sanctions”. It is this cop-out that Senator Payne, Ms Campbell and the Department of Human Services legal advisors rely upon when engaging in legal actions against welfare recipients.
  • In effect, their attitude is, “We CAN torture you mentally and emotionally because we are engaged in “lawful sanctions”!

 How low can you go?

 THE FLY IN THE OINTMENT: You need to realise that the privitation clause does not apply when lawful authority is misused for an unlawful purpose, i.e. when politicians and/or public servants (or police officers) break the law: Misuse of lawful authority is “MALFEASANCE”.

  1. In malfeasant circumstances, the privitation clause is “Null and Void” and Article 7 (1) (j) applies in full.
  2. Centrelink withholding evidence in a tort claim, e.g. not making the recordings of phone calls available, or deliberately hiding credible, relevant, significant facts is not just a ‘procedural fairness’ violation; it is a SERIOUS CRIMINAL ACT and any suffering experienced by welfare recipients as a consequence of this criminal activity is a Crime against Humanity under article 7 (1) (f) of the Rome Statute.

In my last posting I revealed that Senator Payne, the Minister for Human Services, and Kathryn Campbell, the Secretary for Human Services, had spent a staggering $565,000 in an attempt to recover an alleged over-payment of less than $6,000. They were apparently quite prepared to bankrupt a man in order to do this.


Yarra sinkingOver the last 100 years, have over 102,000 Aussie Diggers in Australia’s Defense Forces sacrificed their lives so that Senator Payme and Bureacrat Campbell could do that?

Buck taylorDid Buck Taylor, man the only working gun on HMAS and fight of marauding destroyers, just so that Tony Abbott could violate the constitutional, legal and human rights of young Australians by depriving them of a welfare allowance if the were unemployed?

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" Tony Abbott is allowing Centrelink's ISIS computer  to pay ISIS supporters who want to fight in Iraq. UNREAL, but TRUE!

“Beyond a reasonable doubt”
Tony Abbott is allowing Centrelink’s ISIS computer to pay ISIS supporters who want to fight in Iraq. UNREAL, but TRUE!

  1. Did these brave men and women die so that Tony Abbott could give welfare benefits to terrorists who like to rape 9 year old girls or behead anyone who disagrees with them?
  2. Did these brave men and women sacrifice themselves so that in just one year, Tony Abbott could deliberately deprive 346,078 impoverished people of their only means of survival?
  3. Did they die, so that Tony Abbott could turn the RAAF into a taxpayer funded aerial taxi service when he needed to meet with Liberal Party power-brokers?

Good government is about upholding both national laws and international laws. So, is this good government:?

“The light of human rights is fading in Australia.”

‘The Immigration Minister spat the dummy on international law saying: “This parliament should decide what our obligations are under these conventions – not those who seek to direct us otherwise from places outside this country, such as foreign courts or the United Nations.” The Minister assured us that Australia would comply with its international obligations – which is presumably not difficult if international law is now simply what the government says it is.”          Opinion – The Drum 7th October 2014 Professor Ben Saul, Emeritus Professor of International Law, University of Sydney.

So, is this also good government:?

“People have a right to be bigots” said the Australian Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis during senate debate on an amendment to Section 18 of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Senator Brandis

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

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

Part 6: Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity:- A Hansard example of why welfare recipients should avoid using Centrelink’s phoney ‘appeal’ system.

Dial 13 32 76 and within seconds you will hear a pre-recorded voice state that:

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

What you will have JUST heard is a deceptive lie.

If Centrelink over-pays a welfare recipient due to a mistake by a Centrelink employee or a computer error, that recording will be withheld in any appeal made through the Federal Government’s “quick and simple” appeal system. Withholding crucial information is Standard Operating Procedure for welfare system bureaucrats in the DSS and DHS, a fact made VERY clear in the following Hansard Minutes taken from a hearing by  the Senate’s Community Affairs Legislation Committee (CALC) on 26th February 2015.

It should be no surprise that Centrelink withholds information from welfare recipients when seeking to recover some of the almost $4 billion in over-payment errors made since 1997. It appears from the Hansard Minutes below that the Secretary of the Department of Human Services (DHS), i.e. the Public Service ‘boss’ of Centrelink and some senior DHS staff may be concealing information from a Senate Committee of Inquiry.

A QUICK HEADS_UP: Consider these extracts from the HANSARD Minutes:

  •  Senator XENOPHON Yesterday’s report in The Canberra Times revealed that the department has spent $565,000 of taxpayers’ money litigating against a father over, effectively, a $6,000 difference of opinion. I presume the journalist is correct with respect to the $565,000 figure?
  • Ms Campbell: The $565,000 is correct in the total amount involved in this case but it is incorrect in the other amount.
  • The reason so much money has been spent on this case has been the need to test at law certain objectives.
  • Senator XENOPHON: Let us talk about the issue of model litigant. I note that when the agency fronted the Family Court two weeks ago it had a barrister, two AGS lawyers and a departmental lawyer to oppose an untrained, self-representing father asking that his matter be re-opened to lay out documents that he says—and that I say—were erroneously withheld from him and he wanted the judge to consider.
  • This is a very important issue. If it is accepted that there are important legal issues at stake here, …can you as minister, at least consider or give an undertaking that you will not be seeking costs against the father, potentially bankrupting him, for what he considers are important matters of principle? I think you agree that the seminal issues are important matters of principle.
  1. NOTE: The withholding of information from welfare recipients so that a tribunal or court cannot consider this evidence appears to be standard operating procedure for DHS/Centrelink in tort actions, i.e.when Centrelink sues a welfare recipient to recover alleged over-payments.
  2. This is a serious violation of Section 135.2 of the Commonwaelth Criminal Code Act  (1995) but in a case that I was recently involved in the AAT “Member” presiding in the trial simply ignored this criminal action and went so far as to allow UNSWORN “evidence” presented by Centrelink to be tabled and accepted as fact.
  3. However, statements made by the welfare recipient under Sworn Oath were either ignored or disbelieved. To say that this KANGAROO COURT trial was a text book case of “Manifest Ostensible Bias” is a gross understatement!
  4. $565,000 to claw back less than $6,000 and willingness to BANKRUPT someone just to win a point of law!
  5. How cold-hearted and just plain ruthless are these people?
  6. Try this for size: In the following document, a senior Centrelink official describes how fatalities caused by unconstitutional, human rights violations are successfully hidden from both the parliament and the public, i.e. they were simply ignored and the data on these deaths was “not collected”.

Neil Skill 300dpi copyIn addition to being homicides in every state and territory in Australia, these fatalities are also Crimes against Humanity under Article 7 (1) (k) of the Rome Statute of the International Court of Justice. Centrelink hides these murders and the AAT ignores them! What sort of justice is this?



The text below starts at:

  • Page 25 Senate Thursday, 26 February 2015

Senator XENOPHON: These are matters running to child support. The minister and the secretary are familiar with the front page report in The Canberra Times yesterday. There is a wry smile there that indicates a familiarity—

Ms Campbell: Yes, I did read that article.

Senator XENOPHON: I am going to touch on a matter which I appreciate is before the courts. As such, I will be restricting my questions in relation to this to the management of the litigation and the cost. Noting section 121 of the Family Law Act—and notwithstanding parliamentary privilege—that it is unlawful to identify the parties in a court case, I want to make it absolutely clear that I will not be doing anything that will identify the parties. I trust that the answers will reflect that as well. Yesterday’s report in The Canberra Times revealed that the department has spent $565,000 of taxpayers’ money litigating against a father over, effectively, a $6,000 difference of opinion. I presume the journalist is correct with respect to the $565,000 figure?

Ms Campbell: The $565,000 is correct in the total amount involved in this case but it is incorrect in the other amount.

Senator XENOPHON: Incorrect in which matter?

Mr Hutson: The total amount of expenditure of $565,000 is not about a single matter in front of the courts. It is about a series of matters in front of both the Family Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal running over the period of August 2011—

 Senator XENOPHON: But the genesis of it was still about the way the department handled this and the amount involved.

CHAIR: Senator Xenophon, if you could just allow Mr Hutson finish before you interject.

Ms Campbell: I reject the fact that the entire amount that has been spent is about a $6,000 debt.

 Senator XENOPHON: Perhaps we can go into that further. I want to talk about processes now. Is this the external Australian Government Solicitor cost, or are there internal costs as well that need to be factored in—in terms of resources of the department that have been expended on this?

Mr Hutson: That does include internal costs of the department.

Senator XENOPHON: It does include internal costs?

Mr Hutson: It does.

Senator XENOPHON: But at this stage the matter has not concluded, so I assume that if this matter is not resolved the costs will continue to escalate and there may well be costs orders involved as well.

Ms Campbell: When we say ‘the matter’, I think it is a number of matters that are leading through this case. The litigation continues.

Senator XENOPHON: Ms Campbell, we will go into that in a minute. It is the same original matter about the way the agency dealt with this particular issue, but some of them have flowed on to issues of FOI and about findings of the Information Commissioner which ruled effectively against the agency and which are still being contested by the department. I understand that this fundamentally centres about a child support change of assessment that the agency originally got wrong. Is that a fair assessment?

Ms Campbell: The matter commenced with a child support assessment. I am not sure we would characterise it as the agency getting it wrong.

Senator XENOPHON: Let us put it this way: I understand that an objections officer and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal both agreed that the original assessment was out, or wrong, by about 50 per cent. Can I clarify it? Having read the documents, the original assessment was $12,000 but was later reduced to $7,000.

Mr Hutson: I am sorry; I do not have that level of detail in front of me.

Senator XENOPHON: I do. You may want to take it on notice if you think that is wrong.

Mr Hutson: Sure.

Senator XENOPHON: Having read the papers, it seems that the SSAT confirmed that it was out by about 50 per cent.

Ms Campbell: Sometimes the SSAT has information that is not available to the original decision-maker.

[MY COMMENT: WHY? There should be full disclosure at ALL times! That is what the Kioa Decision [HCA 81] (1985) was/is all about. ]

Senator XENOPHON: I have spoken to the father, and again this morning he advised me that, other than during adjustment periods between the objection and the SSAT decisions, or changes in salary, there has never been an arrears situation. On one occasion there was a significant overpayment. He wants to make it clear: it is not a case about collection, it is not about the father not paying; it is about the processes that the department uses.

  • Page 26 Senate Thursday, 26 February 2015

I understand that the father has provided me with court orders he is seeking, including a consent order which protects the mother from any arrears that might result from any decision in his favour, so that there is no question of the mother and the children being out-of-pocket as a result of these measures.

Ms Campbell: If we are going to protect the court proceedings in this case I am not sure whether that is relevant for us to comment on. We have watched this case very closely because there have been broader matters of law, other than just the people who are involved in this case. That is one of the reasons why the costs are so high—because we have paid the legal expenses of both proponents, as we have sought to seek clarity over the operation of the child support law.

Senator XENOPHON: It has cost well over half a million dollars, and it could well cost hundreds of thousands of dollars more before this is concluded; is that right?

Ms Campbell: They are important pieces of law to how we administer the entire child support system to determine whether some pieces of evidence are admissible in determining child support.

Senator XENOPHON: But you are aware that the father did contact the department direct to say, ‘I am prepared to participate in alternative dispute resolution to try and resolve this without recourse to costly litigation’? Can you acknowledge that?

Ms Campbell: I am aware of that, but there is also an issue about precedent, how we go forward with not just this case but other cases. The reason so much money has been spent on this case has been the need to test at law certain objectives. That is why the Commonwealth, as the model litigant, has paid the expenses of the other two parties involved—so we could test that at law.

[MY COMMENTS re “need to test the law” and “paid the expenses of the two parties involved” ]

  1. There is no consideration for the Commonwealth’s obligations under the International Convention against Torture which states in Article 1:
  • For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
  • This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
  • Article 2 states:
  • Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
  • No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
  1. The implication of articles 1 & 2 of the ICAC is that whilst Ms Campbell may consider it to be convenient to “test the law”, this cannot be done in a manner that violates the Commonwealth of Australia’s obligation to uphold the ICAT.
  2. Australia signed the ICAT on 10th December 1985 and ratified it by treaty on August 8th 1989, i.e. ATS 21.
  3. It is covered under Australian law by the Crimes (Toture) Act 1988; this law came into effect on 26 June, 1987.
  4. Refer to the following web URL for more details:

The 2nd major issue is Ms Campbell’s “paid the expenses of the two parties involved” statement.

  1. If that were true, why is the un-named father involved in this dispute having to ‘self-represent’?
  2. In referring to “expenses” is Ms Campbell restricting that term to court costs only for the un-named father.
  3. A truly fair and impartial test case seeking clarification of statute law is a public interest issue and the Commonwealth, to be consistent with the human rights principle of “Equality before the Law” would have the Commonwealth paying for legal representation and court costs for all parties involved.
  • Again, the No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, …may be invoked as a justification of torture” in article 2 (2) of the ICAC applies here as well.
  1. Consider this statement by senator Xenophon and the enormous stress that the un-named father would be under: “…a barrister, two AGS lawyers and a departmental lawyer to oppose an untrained, self-representing father.”
  2. Where is the Commonwealth’s “Equality before the Law” obligation being upheld in that, and are measures in place to ensure that the Commonwealth’s obligations under ICAC articles 1 and 2 are not being violated?

Senator XENOPHON: Let us talk about the issue of model litigant. I note that when the agency fronted the Family Court two weeks ago it had a barrister, two AGS lawyers and a departmental lawyer to oppose an untrained, self-representing father asking that his matter be re-opened to lay out documents that he says—and that I say—were erroneously withheld from him and he wanted the judge to consider. It concerns me that there is now an argument about not allowing documents. You are supposed to be a model litigant and you are saying you are fighting—you are spending tens of thousands of dollars with each court hearing—about not allowing documents to be reconsidered in respect of this matter, attempting to refuse that these documents be considered.


Ms Campbell: To do that I would need to call the legal practitioners so that we could go through that level of detail. As you can imagine, we do provide the actual operation of these legal cases to the lawyers to construct those. I do not have the information about that exact point with me.

[ MY COMMENT: OOPS! Did Ms Campbell just unintentionally confess to “Conspiracy to Obstruct and pervert the course of justice for the purpose of obtaining a financial advantage that the Commonwealth was/is not entitled to receive”? ]

Senator XENOPHON: Again, I ask that you take this on notice. A fortune is now being spent, with up to four lawyers turning up against an unrepresented father about documents that he says—and I say—were erroneously withheld from him. Can I go to the AAT?

Let us move to the FOI documents that the Information Commissioner has decided are not FOI-exempt. So the Information Commissioner has been involved in this. You have engaged Clayton Utz to represent you in the AAT and I believe you have special counsel and a partner working on the matter, along with an instructing solicitor from Human Services; is that right?

Mr Hutson: That would probably be right.

Senator XENOPHON: So you are there fighting an Information Commissioner’s ruling.

Mr Hutson: That is again a very, very important point of law. We believe that the Information Commissioner’s decision was not correct. Those documents go to legal professional privilege. In terms of the way we administer the child support legislation, the Social Security Act and all the other legislation we administer, legal professional privilege is an important part of the way we obtain legal advice and consider it. There is some information there which the Information Commissioner believes should have been released. But in our view that should not have been released, and the matter goes to legal professional privilege. That is why we have taken the matter up in front of the AAT.

Senator XENOPHON: I have just got a message from the father, who is looking at this, saying that costs were paid in the first matter only, that you are seeking costs against him in the appeal of the SSAT decision.

Ms Campbell: The first case, which was about what evidence was required and whether or not it could be used, was the matter of law that we were very focused on. I think that is where most of this started and that is where the costs are. These subsequent areas have come from the applicant. So we are, as is our normal practice, working through the legislative—

Senator XENOPHON: But you are seeking costs against him, so you will probably wipe him out. It is supposed to be a test case but you might wipe him out.

  • Thursday, 26 February 2015 Senate Page 27

Ms Campbell: It was a test case for the first part—

Senator XENOPHON: Well you should have said that earlier.

Ms Campbell: I thought we were still talking about that, Senator. Then you went into the FOI, which I was treating separately; I am sorry.

Senator XENOPHON: Okay, but it is all inter-related, though. One flows from the other, doesn’t it?

Ms Campbell: The first case was we were trying to determine whether or not under the Child Support Act we could use a piece of evidence—

Senator XENOPHON: Hearing your answer earlier, Ms Campbell, it would seem you said, ‘It is a test case. We are paying his costs’. There are things flowing from that where he could end up losing his house as a result of massive cost orders against him because of the costs that are being knocked up by your department.

Ms Campbell: But they are subsequent actions he is taking against the Commonwealth.

Senator XENOPHON: Arising out of the same set of facts.

Ms Campbell: But they are subsequent actions that he is taking.

Senator XENOPHON: I am glad we clarified that. I have had a look at a few published AAT judgments which involved the department as respondent. It seems to me that mostly in-house lawyers are used to appear at the tribunal; sometimes the AGS. Why are you engaging Clayton Utz in this instance, given the additional cost


Mr Hutson: We have a legal panel and we use it. AGS is simply a member of our legal panel. I am not sure why particularly we used Clayton Utz—

[ MY COMMENT re I have had a look at a few published AAT judgments which involved the department as respondent. It seems to me that mostly in-house lawyers are used to appear at the tribunal; sometimes the AGS.

  • RULE #1: for any welfare recipient who gets sucked into Centrelink’s so-called appeal system – YOU WILL BE UP AGAINST A PLATOON OF LAWYERS FROM:
  • “In-house”, i.e. Department of Human Services;
  • Crown Law Office, i.e. (AGS) Australian Government Service;
  • National law firms, e.g. Clayton Utz, or Dun & Bradstreet.

RULE #2: Avoid this system and force Centrelink into the REAL COURT system which, on average, costs Centrelink $25,000 and where you can ask all of the questions that the Parliament does not want asked.:

  • Allege criminal misconduct by Centrelink officials;
  • Allege violation of rights by the Federal Parliament;
  • Is leaving impoverished people totally destitute, with no assured means of subsistence for 2 or 3 months, an action that recklessly and deliberately places lives in peril?
  • Ask questions about the secretly classified death caused by unconstitutional, human rights violating legislation, e.g. how many of the 20,914 suicides that occurred between 1st January 1997 and 31st December 2006 were welfare recipients who had had their welfare allowance unilaterally suspended without INDEPENDENT arbitration by an impartial court or tribunal.
  • Was the suspension of these welfare payments consistent with the Commonwealth’s constitutional obligation under paragraph 51, sub-paragraph 23A of the constitution.
  • Was the suspension of these welfare payments consistent with the Commonwealth’s human rights obligations under Articles 1 and 9 of the International Convention for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights?
  • Was the Breaching process a deliberate, vested interest process that violated your rights under Article 14 of the International Convention for Civil and Political Rights?
  • Is deliberately making people destitute an action that violates articles 1 & 2 of the International Convention against Torture?
  • On what date were legislated welfare penalties, commonly referred to, even in parliamentary debate as “breaching”, first introduced?
  • Since then, how many people who have been breached have never receiving a welfare benefit because they were deceased?
  • Since 1st July 1997, how many times has the Secretary of the Department of Social Security, or an agent of the Secretary, engaged in tortious conduct in an attempt to recover alleged over-payments?
  • How much in total was the Secretary attempting to recover by this tortious conduct?
  • Have members of the Senate’s Community Activities Legislation Committee ever expressed concern about the high rates of over-payment?
  • Has Centrelink’s 30 year IBM 204 computer system been described by senators, government ministers, and senior public servants as “The elephant in the room”, “antiquated”, Frankenstein Monster”, “behemoth” or  “a turbo-charged Commodore 64 with spoilers”?
  • Does this antiquated computer have 30 million lines of code, much of which was written before many of the people who now program it, were even born?
  • Is much of this code undocumented?
  • Does it take a team of 30 programmers up to 3 months just to change a letterhead or boilerplate text in form letters?
  • How many such actions were terminated or delayed by the death of respondent welfare recipients?
  • How many of these breaching and tortious conduct fatalities have been included in annual reports to the Federal Parliament?
  • How many of these breaching and tortious conduct fatalities have been included in quarterly “Public Accountability” reports?
  • Why are arbitrarily recorded phone calls not made available to respondents when over-payment errors are discovered by Centrelink or DHS personnel?
  • Why are these deaths secretly classified as “confidential” by the Federal Parliament?
  • Why are these deaths also classified as “irrelevant” by both the Federal Parliament and Crown Law?
  • Are these deaths homicides, e.g. WA Crimes Act, s279 (4) or the NSW Crimes Act, s18 (1)?
  • Are these deaths crimes against humanity under Article7 (1) (k) of the Rome Statute of the International Court?
  • Under which prime minister have most fatalities occurred?
  • Will either the Secretary for the Department of Social Services or the Secretary for the Department of Human Services accept legal responsibility for these fatalities?

Senator XENOPHON: Let’s move on, because I am running out of time. I note that the legal services directions require you to get a written advice before commencing proceedings. Did that occur in this instance?

Mr Hutson: That certainly occurs.

Senator XENOPHON: You also need to get an estimate under the various professional rules as to what the likely cost of this action would be?

Mr Hutson: Yes.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you tell us what the estimate was?

Mr Hutson: No, I would have to take that one on notice.

Senator XENOPHON: Yes, but you will tell me that, won’t you? Or the likely costs—

Mr Hutson: If I am able to tell you that. I will take the question on notice and I will—

Senator XENOPHON: No, no. What I do not understand is that you have refused previously to let me know what the costs of this are, notwithstanding that Senator David Johnston, when he was in opposition, was asking similar questions and you provided information to him as to what the costs were a couple of years ago. Back then it was $25,000. It has now gone up to $565,000. I want to know why you have refused, in answers on notice, to provide me with details of cost. It does not relate to the identity of the parties. I just want to know what the costs are.

[ MYCOMMENT: $25,000 a couple of years ago for legal actions in the courts is a good ball-park figure as to the cost of Centrelink taking people to court if they refuse to use Centrelink’s own biased, ‘get-the-money-any-way-you-can” appeal system.

Mr Hutson: I will take that question on notice then.

Senator XENOPHON: It is my intention to put a standing question on notice, as this matter continues, about the costs. Your standard contract terms about refusing to answer questions of costs suggest it is not a problem to reveal monetary aspects of contracts to the Senate. I refer you to clause 15, in particular, and clauses 14.3 under ‘confidentiality’ and 14.3(d) that ‘without limiting the application of this clause, 14.3, is disclosed in order to respond to a question or a direction of a House or a request by a committee of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia or such equivalent bodies of the parliament of the relevant state’. Do you agree that in this process, if you are asked questions about how much a particular matters costs, you ought to disclose that?

Mr Hutson: As I said, I will take that question on notice.

Ms Campbell: We will abide by those directions of the Senate.

Senator XENOPHON: You have not previously.

Ms Campbell: I will go back and review that as to where that has occurred.

Senator XENOPHON: These were previous answers on notice provided.

Ms Campbell: I will review those questions.

[ MYCOMMENT: re: “I will review those questions”. The key word is “review”. Ms Campbell is not promising to answer those questions? If these people hide information from senators at Senate inquiries, is it any wonder that they also hide information from both the public and welfare recipients who are being sued by Centrelink? ]

  • Page 28 Senate Thursday, 26 February 2015

Senator XENOPHON: Just to recap and to finalise: in summary, this man, even if there were a finding in his favour, does not want to pay any less to his wife and children. He is willing to give undertakings to the court in respect of that. He was concerned about the processes that were involved. He has been doing this as a selfrepresented litigant—a very good job, I think, in terms of the way he has been arguing his case. He has approached the department to say: ‘Can you sit down and try and resolve this through an alternative dispute resolution?’, and you are not prepared to do that.

[ MY COMMENT re: “alternative dispute resolution This is consistent with the High Court’s Kawasaki Decision, i.e. parties to a dispute can agree to settle out of court, regardless of a court’s original decision. ]

Ms Campbell: Can I take you through what we understand to be the steps of these matters?

Senator XENOPHON: Can you answer that direct question? On two occasions he has contacted the department saying, ‘Can we please sit down and resolve this without this massive litigation war involving hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money over a matter based on the SSAT ruling which involves about 5,000′.

Ms Campbell: I reject that it is a matter that involves $5,000.

Senator XENOPHON: I am just relying on the Child Support Agency calculator: the annual amount of child support was $12,634; the SSAT recalculated it. After that it was $7,332.

CHAIR: Senator Xenophon, it might be helpful if we allowed Ms Campbell to outline some of those steps.

Senator XENOPHON: Sure.

CHAIR: Because there are obviously differing points of view here. If Ms Campbell can put the department’s point of view about the steps that have been taken, then you can ask any further questions.

Senator XENOPHON: Of course.

Ms Campbell: The first matter was a Family Court matter that was brought in 2011 and was brought by the department in order to clarify an important legal principle which had far broader implications for all child support assessments. The department paid the legal costs for the person involved and the other parent because it was so important to set the principle. It would have been unfair of them to bear that cost. So that was finalised. The second matter was an appeal of that decision in 2012, brought by the individual that you are speaking with, about the documents. That was discontinued by the person you are talking of after three months. The third matter, which is currently before the courts, relates to the child support assessment. These proceedings have been heard but remain reserved. The fourth matter is currently in the AAT and relates to the department appealing the decision by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner about access to what we considered to be legal advice. So this is not just about a $5,000 or a $6,000 assessment. It is about a much broader range of issues.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you please at least concede that they still arise out of the same set of facts? They still arise out of an erroneous decision that could have been solved probably with a phone call earlier on and it has now taken a life of its own.

Ms Campbell: I do not think that is the case. The first matter supported the Commonwealth’s position.

Senator Payne: The Family Court upheld—

Ms Campbell: The Family Court upheld the decision. Then there was an appeal, which was the second matter. Then there is a third matter, which relates to the actual assessment. That first matter was upheld.

Senator XENOPHON: I am very grateful to the chair for the time. I want to wrap this up. One of the orders sought by the father in this is a declaration that the Child Support Registrar is prevented, by way of enactment under the act, from advancing a child support assessment objection when it has prima-facie indications that an application or submission arrived at in the part 6A assessment or objection contains false and/or misleading and/or reckless information. That is what he is fighting this about. He says to him it is an important matter of principle—

Senator Payne: And it is to us as well.

Senator XENOPHON: Why will there not be a concession, Minister, on the part of the agency that if an assessment contains false and/or misleading and/or reckless information, whether from any of the parties involved, that that ought to be a factor, that the Child Support Registrar cannot advance a matter until we sort out whether it is false or misleading or reckless? That is what he wants. We are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting something that we ought to be in furious agreement on.

Ms Campbell: I think it was the context in which he thought it was false, whether or not we thought it was false or not. The first case was whether or not the evidence that was used could be used. The Family Court held that it could.

  • Thursday, 26 February 2015 Senate Page 29

Senator XENOPHON: Let us see if we have any rulings by the time of the next estimates. I want to go to the issue of indemnity costs.

CHAIR: You will have to do it quickly.

Senator XENOPHON: I will. The costs were sought against the father in the appeal. Your department threatened indemnity costs in the second case. I put this to the minister perhaps—

Senator Payne: Which is the case, it was withdrawn by the father. We do not threaten. We are not in the business of threatening.

[ MY COMMENT re: We do not threaten. We are not in the business of threatening.Senator Payne, the Minister for Human Services was at best, mistaken, with this statement. At worst, she deliberately lied to the committee.

  • What is the jingoistic slogan for Work for the Dole? “No show, no pay”. This, despite the fact that Work for the Dole is both unconstitutional and a violation of human rights!
  • Who is Senator Payne kidding

Senator XENOPHON: I have seen the chaffs. I am aware of the chain of the communications. As someone who still has a practising certificate after 30 years it looked like a threat.

Senator Payne: It is communicable. You and Mr Ruddock I think have your practising certificates after decades in the parliament.

Senator XENOPHON: I still do pro bono work. I still do my pro bono, my guilty pleas for people with gambling problems and the like. I still do that. This is a very important issue. If it is accepted that there are important legal issues at stake here, and that is uncontroverted, given that some of these other matters seem to flow from the original matter, which is the important legal principle—I think if you look at it they all flow from each other—can the department, can you as minister, at least consider or give an undertaking that you will not be seeking costs against the father, potentially BANKRUPTING him, for what he considers are important matters of principle? I think you agree that the seminal issues are important matters of principle. I think you are waiting for a note from the secretary.

Senator Payne: No, I am not, actually.

Senator XENOPHON: Sorry.

Senator Payne: Although I may be in receipt of one, I was not waiting. I am not going to answer that question here. I obviously take advice from the officers in the department. Happily for all of them I am not litigating this, notwithstanding perhaps dreams and ambitions of a former life. Let me take some advice and undertake to discuss this with you further.

Senator XENOPHON: Thank you.

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

Part 5: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity:- How the Abbott Government used its ISIS computer sysytem to fund ISIS terrorists. (Sub-Title:- “Beyond a reasonable doubt” for payments to terrorists versus “On the balance of probability” in tort actions against welfare recipients.)

When it comes to Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity” things do not get much more bizarre than the Abbott Government paying welfare benefits to ISIS terrorist combatants using “The benefit of doubt” or “Beyond reasonable doubt” logic whilst using “Balance of Probability” logic in spurious, fraudulent torts against impoverished welfare recipients.

  1. The following text comes from a Federal parliament HANSARD file dated Thursday, 26 February 2015 . It starts at Page 21 of the Hansard record of a COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE inquiry into Centrelink’s extremely dis-functional, 30-year old ISIS computer system.
  2. Please, read, everything to get full insight into the different treatment that the Abbott Government gives to ISIS terrorists and Australian welfare recipients.

So, Who’s Who?

  • Ms Campbell is Kathryn Campbell – The Secretary of the Department of Human Services.
  • Mr Jongen is Hank Jongen  – The manager of the DHS media unit.

NOTE: I Underlined some of the text for emphasis.



 Senator CAMERON: Can I come back now to the benefit of the doubt, which The Prime Minister has indicated Centrelink is giving people who are a threat to the community. I think I got to the stage where I was asking how many people you had doing public relations and media work. It was over 70.

 Ms Campbell: Yes.

Senator CAMERON: Who is in charge of that media unit?

 Ms Campbell: Mr Jongen is in charge of the media unit. We will ask

Mr Jongen to come to the table.

 Senator CAMERON: Mr Jongen, how are you?

 Mr Jongen: I am very well, Senator.

 Senator CAMERON: You have a fairly big team working for you—70 people.

 Mr Jongen: I think in the context of the amount of media that we are engaged in, it would be an acceptable number. It is a big team, yes.

 Senator CAMERON: If I need to know about the complexity, I will ask. We have a situation where the first that the department knew that the Prime Minister had a concern about the department giving the benefit of the doubt to people who would do harm to the community was when the Prime Minister made the statement. What did you do after you heard that—apart from maybe faint?

 Mr Jongen: I looked at it in the context of the broader issue, as the secretary has already indicated, which is in relation to potential terrorists overseas, if you like. Having been aware of the fact that we are very limited in terms of the powers under the Social Security Act, it was actually a fair call.

 Senator CAMERON: It was a fair call. So you agree that Centrelink is giving the benefit of the doubt—

 Mr Jongen: I didn’t say that.

 Senator CAMERON: Just let me finish. You are saying it is a fair call. So you must agree then that Centrelink is giving the benefit of the doubt to people who would cause harm to the community. Is that right?

Mr Jongen: I did not say that. What I meant was that the Social Security Act has limitations. Those limitations in this space probably would result in the sort of statements that the Prime Minister made.

 Senator CAMERON: Ms Campbell has just been at pains to go through all the checks and balances and all the internal systems and external systems to deal with this. So I am a bit confused that on the one hand we have evidence earlier that says if someone uses their passport to go overseas then that payments will be stopped. You accept that.

 Mr Jongen: Yes.

 Senator CAMERON: What do you believe this ‘benefit of the doubt’ is then?

 Mr Jongen: Firstly, I am not a subject expert. You are asking me my personal opinion.

 Senator CAMERON: No, you are not here in any personal capacity. You are here as a senior public servant. That is the capacity you are in. That is what I am asking you. I am not interested in your personal view.

 Mr Jongen: All I can say is that there are no provisions under the Social Security Act, particularly at the time that the Prime Minister made these comments, that actually prevent people of, let us letter say poor character, from travelling overseas.

 Senator CAMERON: So people who are engaged in harming the Australian community?

Mr Jongen: That is correct. Those provisions do not exist under the Social Security Act.

 Ms Campbell: The department’s interpretation of the comments was the legislative framework in which we operate.

 Senator CAMERON: Which has checks and balances, as you have indicated.

 Ms Campbell: But until recently, when the foreign fighters legislation was introduced and passed through the Parliament, there was not a power to suspend or cancel a payment if someone was suspected of terrorist activity.

Senator CAMERON: When did the foreign fighters legislation go through?

 Ms Campbell: At the end of last year.

 Ms Golightly: In November.

 Senator CAMERON: When did the Prime Minister make this statement?

 Ms Campbell: The prime minister made the statement recently.

Page 22 Senate Thursday, 26 February 2015


 Senator CAMERON: Well, I will not ask you what the Prime Minister was thinking, because nobody knows that these days. There could be some reputational damage to Centrelink. The statement that the Prime Minister made was that you are giving the benefit of the doubt to people that could harm the community.

 Senator Payne interjecting—

 Senator CAMERON: Can you let me finish?

 Senator Payne: Certainly. I thought you had finished.

Senator CAMERON: Good on you. You have 70 people, Mr Jongen. Do you engage with, say, the Alan Joneses, these shock jocks who are out there running these arguments that there is a system in chaos? How do you deal with that? What do you do to engage and get the story that we heard this morning—not your story because

they are a bit different—but the story from Ms Campbell. I’m just worried that you have a different story from Ms Campbell. But, anyway, what do you do to engage with the commercial media?

 Mr Jongen: I have a regular cycle of talkback sessions across most key talkback stations. The agreement that I have with those stations is that I do a 30 minutes segment during which I take questions from customers and deal with their issues. Basically, as part of that discussion, part of my role is debt prevention rather than fraud detection. That means that I talk about people’s obligations, the requirements that they need to meet and the fact that they should be honest in their dealings with us, et cetera. That becomes one of the central themes. On occasions, if I am asked, I also deal with issues of fraud prevention, but always at a very general level. I talk about the fact that we undertake data-matching exercises with a range of government agencies and that we have internal data matching, all of which contributes to a very sophisticated system of fraud detection.

Senator CAMERON: So you do that ‘on occasions’?

 Mr Jongen: Yes.

 Senator CAMERON: When was the last occasion you dealt with that issue?

 Mr Jongen: The last occasion, in terms of specific media, was actually not in talkback radio but on A Current Affair. I have also done interviews with Today Tonight. We work with those programs.

 Senator CAMERON: When?

 Mr Jongen: Two occasions in December were the last times. Can I make another point? I do not emphasise fraud on every occasion, because one of the central elements of my message is that the overwhelming majority of Australians are honest in their dealings with us. So although we have to be conscious of fraud, it needs to be always contextualised.

======================================================== [ MY COMMENT re: ”the fact that they should be honest in their dealings with us, et cetera.

  1. Honesty is a two-way-street for most people; however;
  2. On May 16th 2011, Hank Jongen appeared on the 7 Network’s ‘today-tonight’ current affairs program and very aggressively spouted the “We will get you, we will get you”
  3. What he forgot to mention was at that time there was no actual law that required welfare recipients to report income, i.e. there was no “We will get you” law in place at that time.
  4. Not one word was mentioned about Centrelink’s manifestly dysfunctional ISIS system, and the nightmare problem of the 50 million per day keystrokes of data entered by people who were NOT professionally trained DATA ENTRY operators.
  5. Not one word about staff workload fatigue or morale problems.
  6. Not one word about the totally inadequate 6-week training program for call centre operators who would have to deal with both the antiquated ISIS computer system and the complex, constantly changing legislation for not only the Social Security Act, but also for other legislation, e.g. the Privacy Act.
  7. How many times has Hank Jongen told the public that Breaching is unconstitutional and a violation of international human rights obligations?
  8. How many times has Hank Jongen told the public that Work for the Dole is unconstitutional and a violation of international human rights obligations?]


Senator CAMERON: Sure, but you have a situation now where you are the head of public relations, basically. What is you title?

 Mr Jongen: General manager, Communications.

 Senator CAMERON: So you have a job to communicate with the public and with the media to get the real issues out there. The Prime Minister has made an allegation that the Department of Human Services is giving the benefit of the doubt to people who would do harm to the community. What communications strategy have you developed with your 70 media people and with the secretary to get the message out there that that is not a correct position?

 Ms Campbell: Minister Morrison made a statement on the day after, I think—the Monday—indicating his confidence in Centrelink applying the legislation as it was in place, and that, if there were changes that needed to be made, they needed to be made in that legislative frame.

 Senator CAMERON: Minister Morrison is a minister for DHS, is he?

 Ms Campbell: Minister Morrison is the minister for the Social Services portfolio.

 Senator CAMERON: Mr Jongen, what strategies, what planning, have you done to try to disavow the position that some of the shock jocks are running with now that DHS is funding people who would do harm to the Australian community? What strategies have you put in place?

 CHAIR: Mr Jongen, just before you answer, we are due to break, so I will allow you to answer this question and then we will go to a break.

 Mr Jongen: The issue here, of course, is that the difference is in accountability on the part of the Attorney-General and the Department of Human Services.

 Senator CAMERON: Mr Jongen, please—

 Mr Jongen: I just need to give you that—

 Thursday, 26 February 2015 Senate Page 23


 CHAIR: Order! Senator Cameron, you have asked not to be spoken over. Mr Jongen is answering your question.

 Senator CAMERON: No, I did not.

 CHAIR: You did, actually, a couple of times when Mr Jongen tried to answer your question and inadvertently interrupted you. Could you please allow Mr Jongen to finish his answer?

 Senator CAMERON: As long as it goes to my question.

CHAIR: He is entitled to answer his question as he sees fit. You can follow up questions later but Mr Jongen should be allowed to answer.

 Mr Jongen: Senator, the answer I would provide would be that there are measures in place to ensure that, with respect to people who leave the country with the intention of doing harm to the Australian community, the Attorney-General can provide notification to us to ensure that payment is not made.

 Senator CAMERON: Chair, that is not what I asked Mr Jongen. I have asked Mr Jongen what he has done, as the head of communications, to deal with this issue that has left the impression that the Department of Human Services is giving the benefit of the doubt to people who would do harm to the Australian community. That is the question.

 CHAIR: Senator Cameron, you get to ask the questions. You do not get to advise the witness on how they should answer. He has had the opportunity to answer. It is past the time to break, so we are going to break for 15 minutes.

Senator CAMERON: All right, Mr Jongen; I want you back on this one.

Proceedings suspended from 10:33 to 10:52

 CHAIR: I will come back to Senator Cameron with his line of questioning. Senator Xenophon is keen to ask some questions so after Senator Cameron I will go to Senator Xenophon.

 Senator CAMERON: I should not be too long. Mr Jongen, could you come back to the question I asked, and that is, what you have done in terms of a strategy to deal with this issue that the impression is out there that DHS is giving the benefit of the doubt to people that would do harm to the community. What have you done with your staff of 70 to provide some media response to this issue?

Ms Campbell: As Mr Jongen’s senior officer, I have not asked him to undertake any work of that nature. I considered that the statement made by Minister Morrison about the legislative framework in which the Department of Human Services operated had addressed any concerns.

Senator CAMERON: In my memory, this is probably the biggest issue that DHS have faced, certainly in light of the current government. Your media people—you have not asked for anything? Did the media people offer up any strategy to you?

Ms Campbell: I have not asked for any strategy. I do not see that there is a need for any strategy.

Senator CAMERON: Okay. If the media, as they have been doing, say that people on DSP and Newstart are over there doing harm to the community, do you not see any need to respond to that?

 Ms Campbell: We respond within the legislative framework. We explain the Social Security Act and how payments can be suspended or cancelled. We talk about the foreign fighters legislation and the provisions within that legislation and we note the responsible parties within that legislation and their roles.

Senator CAMERON: Mr Jongen, do you want to add anything to that?

Mr Jongen: No, Senator.

Senator CAMERON: I didn’t think you would. What is the budget of your department, Mr Jongen?

Mr Jongen: I am going to have to take that on notice. I am sorry. I do not have those figures available to me. Off the top of my head, to assist you, it is around $9 million.

 Senator CAMERON: So we spend $9 million on communications and neither the secretary nor you think that reputational damage to DHS should be dealt with by any media strategy or media response?

 Ms Campbell: The money that is spent on the communications division is very focused on ensuring Australians are aware of the conditions under which social security payments are made. Mr Jongen talked about the opportunities he takes to ensure that people are meeting their needs, understanding how payments work, in a very proactive manner to ensure that Australians are informed.


[ MY COMMENT S re: The money that is spent on the communications division is very focused on ensuring Australians are aware of the conditions under which social security payments are made.

  1. My comments here are virtually a repeat of the points I previously made about Hank Jongen, i.e. no details of the problem of hundreds of millions of dollars every year in ‘Commonwealth errors’ that cannot be detected and LEGITIMATELY reclaimed within the statutory 6-week period.
  2. In 2011, Today tonight, not Centrelink’s media unit, made public the fact that Centrelink’s debt recovery unit was trying to claw back a staggering $3,000,000,000 ($3 BILLION)
  3. There has been no mention of the Federal Parliament’s violations of constitutional rights, legal rights, or basic human rights, and the massive, unreported, classified death toll caused by this illegal, unconstitutional, human rights violating activity.
  4. There has been no mention of the fact that since 1 September 2002, all breaching triggered fatalities are Crimes against Humanity under Article 7 (1) (k) of the Rome Statute, i.e. the international convention that set up the International Criminal Court. (ICC Rome Statute)
  5. Just as Centrelink’s media unit withhold all of this information from the public and the mass media, e.g. A Current Affair and Today Tonight, Centrelink’s debt collection unit appears to also withhold these truth from Social Security Appeals tribunals and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.


Senator CAMERON: Ms Campbell, in your responses to me when I was asking about you giving the benefit of the doubt—the Prime Minister’s statement—to people who would want to harm the community, you seemed to suggest there were checks and balances in place. The foreign fighters legislation, the existing legislation, makes it very difficult for that to happen; is that correct?

 Page 24 Senate Thursday, 26 February 2015


 Ms Campbell: The arrangements in place with the foreign fighters now provide an extra level, or balance, in that regard.

 Senator CAMERON: I was somewhat comforted by that response. You are looking back at where we were and saying we have got this legislation in place, but Mr Jongen seems to be looking forward and saying there are still problems. What are those problems? Mr Jongen, can you tell me what those problems are?

 Mr Jongen: Senator, I was not looking forward. You asked me what my reaction was in relation to the Prime Minister’s comment—

 Senator CAMERON: Not your personal reaction; I am not interested in your personal reaction.

 Mr Jongen: As I attempted to explain to you at the time, at that point in time I recognised that there were shortcomings which the Prime Minister was reflecting on in the social security legislation. Looking forward, which you are now asking me to comment on, we now have the foreign fighters legislation which addresses the reaction that I initially had to the Prime Minister’s comment.

 Senator CAMERON: I will have a look at your Hansard carefully. That is not the impression you gave me.

 Mr Jongen: I apologise if I have misled you.

 Senator CAMERON: Mr Jongen, have you issued any communications internally about this issue so the staff understand where this is at? I am sure all the staff have not been in a position to see this engagement. What have you done to communicate these issues to the staff?

Ms Campbell: I have not issued any communication to the staff.

Senator CAMERON: Nothing?

Ms Campbell: We conducted a dialogue, which is a regular meeting we have with staff from different levels, last Friday. The matter was not raised.

 Senator Payne: Senator Cameron, I know that you would like to cast this in a particular political light, but I think even you could recognise that the government finds itself in quite altered circumstances in terms of—

Senator CAMERON: There is no doubt about the government being in altered circumstances.

 Senator Payne: Some of the external and, frankly, internal threats we face as a nation from extremists. The impact of those circumstances feels its way through a great deal of government, including those of us who are charged with the responsibility of making payments in a responsible fashion in accordance with the existing legislation. As both Ms Campbell and Mr Jongen have said, when the Prime Minister reflected on the circumstances we found ourselves in last year, for example, when the fighting perpetrated by IS escalated so significantly and a larger number of Australians began to be engaged, it is quite a confronting circumstance for a government to face. I do not think anywhere in the world would you find a set of existing social security legislation which equips a government to deal effectively with that in the immediate term. There are a number of provisions within the existing social security legislation—we have discussed those and adverted to those—which are commonly used for removing people from payments if they are in breach of the legislative requirements. But the developing circumstance led to the contemplation of the foreign fighters legislation, which, as Ms Campbell has very clearly said, gives us, if you like, another tool to deal with some of this extremist behaviour. I think a measured and mature reflection, such as has been made on those circumstances and the challenges with which government is faced—although you might like to characterise it otherwise—is a very important discussion that the country has.

 Senator CAMERON: Thanks for that, Minister. Given the chaos and dysfunction in the government, I am concerned that these issues are not being dealt with effectively. I am concerned that DHS has not protected their reputation against another chaotic announcement by a Prime Minister under huge pressure.

Senator Payne: I am absolutely confident in the way in which the Department of Human Services has dealt with these pressures.

 Senator CAMERON: I am finished on this.



 Tony Abbott’s “Beyond a reasonable doubt” policy position and the identified ‘weaknesses’ in the Social Security Act mentioned by Kathryn Campbell and Hank Jongen in the above senate committee session clearly indicate that welfare payments have been paid to Islamic State fighters because the Abbott Government is applying the legal principle of “Beyond a reasonable doubt” to welfare payments.

 Whilst the principle of “Beyond a reasonable doubt” may sound reasonable, it is TOTALLY INCONSISTENT with the civil tort legal benchmark used by Centrelink, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in appeals by welfare recipients in cases that involve the determination of legal liability for alleged over-payments.

 “From Report #12: On the balance of probability.”

 Human Rights Report #12 aaa Report 12This report was tabled in the Federal Parliament at the end, of September 2014, i.e. less than 4 weeks before the Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearing into the problems that bedevil Centrelink’s “antiquated”, “behemoth” ISIS computer system.

Statements 2.11 and 2.12 of this Human Rights Committee report undermined a potentially very lethal piece of unconstitutional, human rights human rights legislation that the Abbott Government had attempted to railroad through the parliament with legislation that was tabled by the (former) Human Services Minister, Kevin Andrews.

 Committee response. (Source: Report #12, pages 72 & 73)

2.10 The committee thanks the Minister for Social Services for his response.

2.11 However, the response does not provide any further information as to how young people are to sustain themselves during a six-month period without social security. The committee noted in its original assessment that information regarding

the likely impact of the measure on individuals and their families, and how individuals subject to the measure will retain access to adequate shelter and food, is necessary in order to assess the human rights compatibility of this measure.

 2.12 Accordingly, the committee considers that the measure is incompatible with the right to social security and the right to an adequate standard of living.

 HOWEVER, in the context of Tony Abbott’s “Beyond a reasonable doubt” funding of Australian national ISIS terrorists, I believe that the value of this human rights report lies in statement 1.19 of the reports STANDARD OF PRACTICE NOTES.

Right to be presumed innocent

1.19 Article 14(2) of the ICCPR provides that a person is entitled to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. This requires that the case against the person be demonstrated on the criminal standard of proof, that is, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof applicable in civil penalty proceedings is the civil standard of proof, requiring proof on the balance of probabilities.


 “Proof on the balance of probability” is the nominal measure that is supposed to be used when determining legal liability for any alleged over-payments received by welfare recipients.

 Clearly, two different standards of Law are in play:

  1.  Centrelink is using “Beyond a reasonable doubt” when funding Australian national ISIS terrorists; and,
  2. the balance of probability” when suing welfare recipients.

 That is more than gross hypocrisy; it is a denial of justice for impoverished welfare recipients, especially given that Centrelink and Crown Law officials appear to have no concerns about the deliberate withholding of any objective evidence that would invalidate Centrelink’s tort claim, e.g. withholding or destroying the telephone recordings that were usually recorded without the express consent of welfare recipients in the first place.

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

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Part 4: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity – Australia’s very own, very real, and very lethal, ISIS (Setting you for a future sting.)

AAA Redacted reporting screen

For insight into just how easy it is for Centrelink to set you up for a criminal prosecution or a fraudulent tort action against you in five years time, just check out the above redacted example of Centrelink’s newest “Receipt” that is provided when welfare recipients report their income to Centrelink.

  1. All that you get is a receipt number – WHERE are the details of what you reported?
  2. Buy groceries from Coles or Woolworths, or a new TV from Harvey Norman and the receipt will have a number and a date.
  3. HOWEVER, the receipt that these retail stores provides to you MUST contain specific details of the purchase if it is to be legally valid.
  4. if the receipt does not contain details of the purchase, how could you exercise your statutory legal rights if the product that you purchased was faulty?
  5. Without the specific details of the transaction, any receipt is useless,
  6. So how come Centrelink’s senior manager, who get paid $388,000 per year, ($14,923 per fortnight or $1063 per day!) doesn’t know how to make a valid receipt?
  7. What you are about to read comes from HANSARD, the official record of debate by federal politicians.


HANSARD: 24 OCTOBER 2014 – A Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearing of Department of Human Services issues. Download from:;page=0;query=24%20October%202014%20community%20affairs%20legislation%20committee;resCount=Default

Senator Cameron – “THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM – ISIS” (Centrelink’s computer management system.)


EXTRACT:  Ms Kathryn Campbell, the Secretary (the boss) for the Department of Human Services, testified: “One of the best stats that summaries the system is that it was originally built to run one batch a day an evening. We now run around 21,000 per day to keep it in sync” (See Pages 20 onwards of the actual minutes.


Senator CAMERON: So you have this integrated system called Isis?

 Ms Campbell: Yes.

 Senator CAMERON: With a number of platforms a number of different types of software?

 Ms Campbell: I think that is the case. But again Mr Sterrenberg will be able to—

 Senator CAMERON: What binds it together? I would rather you tell me than Mr Sterrenberg; I might understand it. What binds it together and makes it talk to each other?

 Ms Campbell: There is an underlying platform of software—model 204 software—and that brings it together. Then we have been developing recently some SAP elements, and those also interface into the system.

Senator CAMERON: So that means the system can talk across the system?

Ms Campbell: It can talk across the system, but, because of those complex pathways, for want of a better term—that is what makes it quite tricky to build new applications within it new programs or changes to older programs.

 Senator CAMERON: I think Mr Sterrenberg described it as ‘a workhorse’ last time. It got the job done.

Ms Campbell: It does.

 Senator CAMERON: Is it antiquated?

 Ms Campbell: It is mature. It is over 30 years old. There are a number of words that have been used to describe it on various occasions, yes.

 Senator CAMERON: If the government said to you, ‘There are changes that need to be made’, are there any changes that would take six years to implement?

 Ms Campbell: The changes we are talking about—to rebuild the whole system?

 Senator CAMERON: No, I am talking about—the system stays as it is. I understand you cannot get rid of the system right away.

 Ms Campbell: No.

 Senator CAMERON: That is the reality. The system is going to be there. It is going to be a legacy system for some period of time. We do not know what is going to replace it until we get the results of the scoping study. Is that correct?

 Ms Campbell: That is right. Government will receive that advice, yes.

 Senator CAMERON: Say all the 60 budget proposals passed parliament tomorrow—and this is not hypothetical; I doubt whether it will happen, but it could happen. That is what the government wants. It wants all its budget measures passed through parliament. If the budget goes through parliament, how long will it take you as a department to implement those budget changes? You must have looked at this. How long would it take you to implement the changes in the system so that you can effectively implement the budget?


QUOTE – UNQUOTE – Check this out!

From Page 22 ,we cannot guarantee the integrity of being able to do that, because of the construction of the current system.) See below:


 Senator CAMERON: So you engage with the government and obviously the government says to you, ‘If we do this, can you manage it?’, and you said, ‘Yes’.

 Ms Campbell: We say yes. And sometimes we say we may not be able to do that, depending on the complexity of the changes envisaged. So the code is quite complex, and, if government were looking for quite significant changes, sometimes we might say that it might take a lot longer or that we cannot guarantee the integrity of being able to do that, because of the construction of the current system.

Senator CAMERON: So then the government has to make a choice about whether it proceeds with a specific issue—or it says: ‘Okay, the time frame to practically implement is this, on the advice of DHS. That is when we practically implement’?

 Ms Campbell: Yes.

(Further on in the debate)

Ms Campbell: Senator, I do not think government has made final discussions on what McClure is, to categorise it as that, but the initial reporting around a much simpler system, a much simpler policy framework, what be very difficult and to implement under the current frame work.

 Senator CAMERON: Impossible?

 Ms Campbell: We would be spending money on a platform, the model 204, which is used by very few other people in the world and which we know has problems. We have issues with it now. I could not advise government that it would be a sensible decision to do a completely new framework in that system.

 (Page 22 still but further on)

 Senator CAMERON: Common sense would tell you there would be some aspects of the McClure report, whatever it ends up being. If you were given the job and you were told you have to do this, you would have to do it, would you not?

Ms Campbell: Depending on time frame, depending on what is decided, depending on the complexity of the measure. It also depends on how many payments it touches. There are a number of payments in the system at the moment and we often find that once we touch one area it may have unintended consequences elsewhere, so it would be better to know.

 Senator CAMERON: So for a layperson I would have said you have this conglomerate of work horses, which is the Isis system, operating with a range of software with some kind of coordination. I do not what to know the details; I only want to know how it drives. I do not know how you build the engine. So how then, if you simplify, does it make it harder?

 Ms Campbell: Mr Sterrenberg will be able to give you more technical detail, but let me give the non- technical detail. We have a very complex system with all these payments and there is a citizen, a costumer, who may access a number of payments and they have to go off to different databases. If the system was more simple and the citizen only was accessing one or two payments, it would be better to build a new system, where the integrity of the data was assured rather than going through a variety of routes to get to that data, to have direct links to a more simple system.

Senator CAMERON: Yes, sure, it would be better to do that and probably cheaper—

Ms Campbell: Less risky; it would not impact on customers getting their payments.

Senator CAMERON: If there were a decision, ‘We have to do this’—

 Ms Campbell: It would depend on what the complexity was. We would look at what was being proposed and we would provide advice to government on what we could do and what we could not do, the time frames and the risks involved in using the existing system to do—

Senator CAMERON: I do not know what advice you have given, but this is an act of consideration. I would think it would be keeping Mr Sterrenberg awake at night as to how we deal with this.

Ms Campbell: That is our job: to provide advice to government on these matters.

Senator CAMERON: So you are actively engaged in that at the moment?

Ms Campbell: Yes, we are engaged with our colleagues on that.

Senator CAMERON: In reality, it does not matter whether you move to McClure, as it is being outlined, from what we read. The issue is getting a more flexible system. Isn’t that the fundamental issue?

FROM PAGE 23, I.E. page 27 of the PDF file:

Senator CAMERON: What are the risks under the current system?

Ms Campbell: The current system has a lot of complex coding and complex hardcoded elements. For example, sometimes we will make a change in one place and, because the code has links elsewhere which may have been developed 20 or 30 years ago, which may not be well documented, it has inadvertent consequences. One example a couple of years ago is that we made some changes to make disaster recovery payments. We made those payments and it inadvertently stopped someone getting their family tax benefit the next week. That was because there had been some sort of link, which we had not been aware of and it had not been documented. We do not have many other people using Model 204 in the world. It is sort of patched together. It takes longer, as I said, than ministers and governments would expect for us to make changes in those systems.

 Senator CAMERON: So we made a decision 10 years ago and you were not part of that decision, I assume. It was as decision 10 years ago, Mr Sterrenberg—

 Senator Payne: Nor was Mr Sterrenberg.

 Senator CAMERON: yes, but Mr Sterrenberg knows the history—to continue with the Isis conglomerate. That was a 10-year contract under the Howard government to take as to 2014.

 Mr Sterrenberg: Yes, it was 10 years ago that their contract was signed.

 Senator CAMERON: So we were locked into the system basically for 10 years, unless we chopped it midstream, with contracts in place for 10 years.

 Mr Sterrenberg: Yes.

 Senator CAMERON: We extended some contracts again, didn’t we, just recently?

 Ms Campbell: We have.

 Senator CAMERON: How long does that run for?

 Mr Sterrenberg: My understanding is that it is for three years.

 Senator CAMERON: Is that to get us through the period between Isis and a new system?

 Ms Campbell: These matters are still for consideration by government. We received funding in 2013-14 to undertake the scoping study and we will provide that advice to government and government will take decisions.

 Senator CAMERON: I understand what you are saying—the government will make that decision—but there are decisions being made now which lock us into the Isis system for another three years.


Centrelink has a 31 year old computer system that is about as stable as the Aloha Airlines 737 that lost its roof!AAA Aloha

Aloha Airlines Flight 243 (AQ 243, AAH 243) was a scheduled Aloha Airlines flight between Hilo and Honolulu in Hawaii. On April 28, 1988, a Boeing 737-297 serving the flight suffered extensive damage after an explosive decompression in flight, but was able to land safely at Kahului Airport on Maui. There was one fatality, flight attendant Clarabelle “C.B.” Lansing, who was swept overboard from the airplane. Another 65 passengers and crew were injured. The safe landing of the aircraft despite the substantial damage inflicted by the decompression was due to the skill of the pilots in maintaining the aircraft in a ‘stable’ flight mode.

Centrelink’s ancient IBM 204 is about as “stable’ as the 737 above, i..e. it works, but who would want to rely on it? 10 years ago, to save money, the Howard Government decided to stick with this dinosaur system, falling-apart-at-the-seams computer system.

In February Ms Campbell again testified before the Committee and described the computer system as “a turbo-charged Commodore 64 with spoilers”.



Senator CAMERON: What sorts of issues are starting to emerge as the challenges for making an effective transposition from one to the other?

Ms Campbell: In all large business transformation and ICT projects there are a number of like issues. One of the officers at the table might be able to take us through those challenges. The advice we have been receiving is that this is similar to any other large transformation program, whether it be a bank or a large system. In fact there is probably a little more complexity in ours, because it is a unique type function. There are no other functions that look like the social security system of Australia anywhere else in the world. We might talk about some more generic transformation issues.

 Mr Sterrenberg: I can give you use some of the technical aspects, Senator. If the government should proceed with this, clearly one of the major issues that will need to be confronted is the sequence of how the technology building blocks will need to be put together. It is not something you can do just randomly. The choices of that sequence will, in a large way, drive the outcomes that we get. Another issue is around data. We store enormous amounts of data in the system. But probably the most challenging one is going to be the transition—to carefully think through the transition steps to make sure that we are able to continue to provide services to the Australian public. We have to make sure that the time lines of implementation of each of the pieces of the new system are aligned with the various payment cycles, and there are various other technical things that we have to do.

PAGE 25  THIS IS TRULY UNREAL – “The back-end saystem cannot cope…”

Senator CAMERON: Are you aware of the problems with the IT transformation in Quebec?

 Mr Sterrenberg: No, not that specific one. I am obviously aware of other lessons that have been learnt globally.

Senator CAMERON: I was advised that there were some issues there and I have read some stuff about that, but that is another area.

 Mr Shepherd: The secretary has talked a lot about the issue of agility. The current system has an impact on our customer servicing. I will give you a couple of examples. You will be well aware of the digital technology we have our customers using now. They can transact with us from their app or on a computer but, unlike the banks or when you want to book travel or order a pizza on a Friday night, they do not get an instant reply from us. That is because the back-end system is not capable of it. You cannot get updates on how your claim is tracking. One of the reasons is that the back-end system cannot cope with that. One of the impacts is that customers have continuously to ring us to ask, ‘Where’s my application at?’, because the back-end system cannot talk in real-time to the front-end digital systems.

The other issue is that every time you apply for something with us we usually treat you as though we do not know you. Every time you start a claim you start from zero. Our customers get very frustrated and think, ‘Why am I doing this again? I’ve told you this over and over again.’ One of the reasons why is the issue that the way the system is built is payment by payment by payment.

 Senator CAMERON: There is no history?

 Mr Shepherd: There is, but the way the system is organised you cannot bring it forward like you would in a bank or with the ATO, which calls it pre-filling. We cannot go, ‘We know you. This is what we know about you. What’s changed?’. The reason we cannot is that the structure of the system behind it is structured around individual claims not the person.

 Senator CAMERON: There are frustrations for the customers. What are the frustrations for the staff?

 Mr Shepherd: They have to re-handle work. They have to re-key and re-process work that on a sophisticated would be able to be processed, that would deal with the sections and the complex stuff they want to be dealing with.

 Senator CAMERON: How much re-work is involved?

 Mr Shepherd: It is different across the different pensions, but some of the analysis we are doing as part of the business case development is on what we are doing manually because we cannot do it in an automated way like the banks or other agencies do.

 Senator CAMERON: Have you done any calculation about the productivity losses in DHS as a result of this re-work?

 Mr Shepherd: Part of the business case is to provide the benefits case around not only the staff effort but the customer effort. It is articulating how much less effort there is for our customers to access our services.

 Senator CAMERON: Surely, regardless of the business case, there has been some analysis, Secretary, about what this means for productivity?


  1. ISIS is out-moded and antiquated.
  2. It is only in use because the Howard Government did not want to spend a Billion dollars on a modern system.
  3. It makes mistakes because there is 30 millions lines of code developed over 30 years and some of the people who wrote that code are either senile or dead.
  4. That is a problem because these people did not document what they did and now, a change to one part of the sysytem can totally stuff up other parts of the system so much that just to change a line in a form letter can take 30 programmers 3-months to do!
  5. That this dis-functional system is still in use is incredible; however, it is used to produce “evidence” that Centrelink and Crown Law use in criminal trials and civil tort actions.
  6. If the Courts knew just how bad this system really is, NO EVIDENCE produced by the ISIS system would be acceptable in courtroom trials because the system is so unreliable.
  7. Making a bad situation even worse is the lousy programming, e.g. the “Receipt” that Centrelink is now issuing to welfare recipients when they report income on-line.
  8. Without specific details of the transaction that would be acceptable in a Court of Law, those “receipts” are worthless.

Ditto for the fraudulent problem of “For your security, this call will be recorded.”

If Centrrelink’s over-worked staff stuff-up and make a “Commonwealth error”, rather than admit this mistake and waive any over-payments as is required by Section 1,237A of the Social Security Act, the phone call recording will be withheld or ‘lost’ and the welfare recipient will either be prosecuted for fraud or else sued to recover the alleged “debt”.


  1. “Beyond a reasonable doubt”
    Tony Abbott is allowing Centrelink’s ISIS computer to pay ISIS supporters who want to fight in Iraq. UNREAL, but TRUE!

    As soon as I can find it, I shall post the Hansard minutes where you can read about Senator Cameron getting stuck into Ms Campbell because TONY ABBOTT  has made the executive decision that supporters of ISIS (the head-choppers association in Iraq and elsewhere) who go off to fight for ISIS overseas will continue to receive a Centrelink benefit until such time as Mr Abbott is satisfied “Beyond a reasonable doubt” that they should not receive this benefit.

  2. In the meantime, Centrelink will continue to prosecution both criminal convictions and debt recovery torts through the courts and the SSAT/AAT using information contained in the ISIS system whilst hiding the flaws in this system that produced the Commonwealth errors that resulted in the alleged over-payments.
  3. At the same time, the Social Service Minister, Scott Morrison, and other members of the Abbott Government, aided by Australia’s mass media, will still foster predjudice and bias in the community by referring to the growing number of (Centrelink) ISIS victims as “rorters.”


1. If you live in New South Wales, some Legal Aid agencies are now providing free advice on how to handle some of Centrelink’s spurious claims.

2. Some states have a Welfare Rights advocacy centre. Check to see if your state has one and if so, point them to this website if you are having hassles with Centrelink.  Try: for Western Australian citizens.

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian lay advocate for real Justice in Australia.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Part4: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity” – How to survive Centrelink’s “Waivergate” fraud.

To avoid becoming yet another victim of Centrelink’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity “Waivergate” fraud, you need to know how this swindle works, and how to fight back.

“Waivergate” is a whole swag bag of dirty tricks such as the genuine example letter below, or the withholding of crucial evidence that would undermine Centrelink’s efforts to recover money that was due to a “Commonwealth error” and which, after 6-weeks had expired, Centrelink was/is legally required to “waive”, i.e. not recover from those overpaid by mistake.

The best in the nutshell advice that I can give is to exercise your right to say nothing, i.e. your right to be silent when questioned by Centrelink, and then fight back, HARD!

AAA Web CarolynFar too many politicians, including Scott Morrison, the current Minister for Social Services, considers people who are overpaid to be “rorters”. This no surprise as Liberal politicians have a track record of regarding welfare recipients are “dole bludgers” and “rorters”. The fact that 56% of the Federal Parliament was caught out in the “Perksgate” rort of $4.64 Million in 2009 is “irrelevant”, at least to them!


(Windows users can right-click on the mouse and select the “Save Page As…” option.)


  1. It may come in the form of a phone call “inviting” you to have a meeting with Centrelink to “discuss” over-payments that you have received, or
  2. It may be in the form of an “Account payable” letter such as the redacted example above – this letter is real but all information that may identify the person it was sent too had been deleted for privacy reasons.

STEP 2: Know what a “Tort” or “Tortious Conduct” is.

  1. A “Tort” or “Tortious Conduct” is another way of saying that someone, i.e. Centrelink, is taking legal steps to recover an alleged  debt or be compensated because you did something wrong.
  2. Do not kid yourself; whether you opt for using Centrelink’s “administrative review processes”, or force Centrelink to sue you in a court of law, you are involved in a complex legal action in which YOU HAVE RIGHTS that Centrelink may violate in order to recover over-payments that they may have no legitimate right to reclaim.
  3. Since Centrelink is taking legal action against you, I strongly recommend that you force Centrelink to take you to court.
  4. In the following steps I shall explain why I think that this is the best option.


You have VERY POWERFUL LEGAL RIGHTS that can limit what steps Centrelink can do in trying to get back over-payments and knowing those rights could save you a lot of grief and pain.

  2. This is perhaps the most important right to remember because just saying “Yes” to the question “Did you receive our letters?” could kill off any chance of not having to repay Centrelink even though it was their fault and not yours that you were over-paid. SO SAY NOTHING IF CENTRELINK PHONES YOU AND ASKS QUESTIONS.
  3. if Centrelink phones you with an invitation to have a meeting to discuss the alleged over-payments – SAY: “I have the right to remain silent and I expect Centrelink to respect that right. If you do not do so, you will automatically invalidate any legal claim to repayment that you are seeking from me.”
  4. SAY: “I intend to seek legal advice from a legal aid lawyer or a welfare rights advocate and will not answer questions without first receiving such advice. No questions put by Centrelink will be answered until I have received advice on the best way to respond to these questions.”
  5. If Centrelink threats to prosecute you, show no fear. INSTEAD SAY: “That means I will automatically be entitled to legal aid and that will make it much easier to expose this fraud in court.”


  1. Request all relevant documentation that covers the period in question, including copies of any documents that you gave to Centrelink, and;
  2. Request MP3 copies of ALL OF THE RECORDINGS that Centrelink recorded during the period when you reported income via the telephone. (Check 13 32 76 for the statement “For your security, this call will be recorded.”
  3. Under the “Rules of Evidence” in a court,and under the federal Evidence Act (1995)  evidence cannot be hidden from you. However, in the Administrative Review Officer ‘interviews, the Social Security Administration Appeals Tribunal hearings, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal trials, it will be hidden from you and you then have no hope of winning!

STEP 5: If Centrelink fails to provide the information requested, go to police station and file a fraud complaint pointing out that the withholding of evience for the purpose of obtaining a financial advantage that is not entitled to be received is FRAUD.

  1. Request that the police provide a complaint number.
  2. If the police decline to do so, politely INSIST that you be given a complaint number and point out that if the police continue to refuse to so, when the tort goes to court, you will  inform the court of the this refusal.
  3. Phone Centrelink and inform them that you have filed a police complaint and tell them the complaint number.


  1. If Centrelink wants to sue you, it is very expensive – so expensive that the cheapest option may be to do what the law requires under Sector 1,237A of the Social Security Act, i.e waive the debt due to “Commonwealth error”.
  2. In Court, Centrelink HAS TO TO PROVE THAT YOU MADE THE MISTAKE that caused the ‘ALLEGED’ over-payments.
  3. YOU, do not not have prove that you are innocent because you are entitled to the presumption of innocence, i.e. the belief that you did no wrong.
  4. You or your lawyer, or lay advocate, get to ask the questions and Centrelink has to answer them.
  5. So you ask the questions that Centrelink does not want to answer.

STEP 7: If you have not yet read the  last posting THEN STOP AND DO IT NOW.

STEP 8: Read what is written below very carefully: AAA Royal CommissionBoth welfare penalties legislation (Breachgate) and fraudulent torts against welfare recipients, i.e. YOU, can expose life to peril. The death toll is secretly classified as “confidential” and “irrelevant” by the Federal Parliament and is also UNREPORTED BY CENTRELINK, just like the Department of Environment never reported the 4 Home Improvement Program fatalities (Roofgate)! Check out the documents embedded in for details. [To print them just click on them and they will pop up in a new screen page and you can use your browser’s PRINT command.]

These deaths are a major weakness that Centrelink does not want to have to reveal in court. So, make sure that Centrelink knows that you will be asking these questions, and many more, in court.

  • STATE THE FOLLOWING: “Over a period measured in decades, on behalf the Federal Parliament, the Secretary for the Department of Social Security has committed millions of violations of constitutional rights, millions of violations of legal rights and millions of violations of human rights.
  • The upside financial benefit to the federal treasury is measured in billion of dollars, possibly 10s of billions of dollars.
  • The downside cost to welfare recipients of this ‘stupefying and overwhelming’ abuse of power has been an appalling humanitarian disaster.
  • Hardship, suffering, homelessness, and worst of all, unnumbered thousands of deaths that are both secretly classified as ‘confidential’ and dismissed as ‘irrelevant’ by the Australian Federal Parliament.
  • Because of this secrecy,the precise number of  fatalities is unknown. However, statistical data on suicides indicated that about 1 in 3 of the 20,914 suicides that occurred in the 10-year period 1997 to 2006 was an unemployed person.
  • How many were the victims of legislated penalties is an issue that needs to be determined in order that the credibility of the Secretary can be assessed before this tort action proceeds further.
  • The Court needs to be advised that the unreported “irrelevant” fatalities not only violate state and territory homicide las laws such as Section 279 (4) of the WA Crimes Act and Section 18 (1) of the NSW Crimes Act; they are also violations of Article 7 (1) (k) of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court.
  • To say that these deaths are major crimes is an understatement, and, consistent with Kioa versus West, High Court of Australia, case 81 in 1985, it is imperative that all relevant and significant information in regard to fatal torts by the Secretary be made clear to the Court for consideration.
  • This need for clarity and transparency was also made clear by the High Court in 1994 in Coco versus the Queen, case number 15. In paragraph 8 the Court stated thatStatutory authority to engage in what otherwise would be tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and
    unambiguous language.
  • Therefore, in order to ensure clarity and transparency, with all relevant and significant evidence in regard to the perhaps extremely questionable and dubious  tortious conduct of the Secretary over the last 3 or 4 decades, the answers to the following questions are sought so that the Court, and the public, may make an informed judgement about the merits of the Secretary’s current claim.”
  1. How much has been over-paid by Centrelink since it was set up in 1997 is a crucial question? The answer is over $3 BILLION
  2. How many times has Centrelink engaged in tortious conduct known as “Breaching”? (Thousands of times.)
  3. Centrelink’s computer system is so flaky that even the Abbott Government  ministers who rely on this system admit that it is does not have the required “INTEGRITY” to do the job! (See the last post about the “Walkman era”, “turbo Commodore 64″ comments.
  4. Print out and read this article which is based upon Senate Hansard reports from 27 February 2015. Ask just how reliable is such shonky and out-moded computer?
  5. Ask, “Just how often does this computer prevent reporting income and how often in court has Centrelink prosecuted people for allegedly not reporting income”?
  6. If you ever get a “not required to report” message from Centrelink’s computer, SAVE IT TO YOUR DESKTOP and print it out as well and then file the printout with your Centrelink stuff.
  7. Make a diary record or computer file if you get kicked of the phone with a “Not required to report” message.
  8. ASK: “Is Breaching, now called Serious Compliance Failure either constitutional in accordance with Section 51, sub-paragraph 23A of the Constitution or consistent with human rights under Articles 2 or 9 of the International Convention of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights?”
  9. ASK: How many times has tortious conduct of any kind been terminated because of the death of a welfare recipient?
  10. ASK “Why were these deaths considered ‘irrelevant’ by a Crown Law Lawyer who represented Centrelink in a case heard before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal?” (Contact me for details on this if your case is going to court.)
  11. ASK: “Why does Centrelink engage in tortious conduct and withhold evidence such as phone call recordings in cases before the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal?
  12. ASK: “Is the withholding of evidence for financial gain a crime that violates both court procedures and the Commonwealth Crimes Act?”
  13. ASK: “Is Centrelink aware that in 1843 an English Royal Commission reported to the Parliament that “…in the absence of a special definite rule of law which defines what is meant by implied malice, consist simply in the disregard of life manifested by exposing life to peril, although no malice in the popular sense of the term exist against any individual.” The Royal Commission’s more concise conclusion was that, “It is the wilful exposure of life to peril that constitutes the crime.”

OKAY, by now you should have some idea of how to put pressure on Centrelink to back off and waive any claim against you.

DO check this entire website from at least onwards and make sure that you copy, print and save the documents that I have posted on the Ronald’s space website.

DO NOT be frightened if Centrelink staff threaten to prosecute you for fraud.

As I said earlier, that means you are eligible for legal aid and if that happens, steer the lawyer to this website and insist that your lawyer contact me by post. The documents posted on Ronald’s space contain my current address, as of 3rd May 2015, and since I have lived here for over 20 years, I do not expect this address to change. If it does, I will post the new address anyway.

LIVE IN ADELAIDE AND HAVE AN SSAT hearing or an AAT “trial” coming up real soon?

Consider contacting me via SMS on 04 386 26811 for ideas/suggestions.

DO NOT contact me by email – my ‘Inbox’ over-flows and some emails can get dumped or diverted to my Junk mail box where they are automatically deleted.


“Lawyers have a special duty to raise their voices and act as they can whenever they believe that the fundamentals of the constitution are endangered by extreme laws or by governmental actions out of harmony with our liberty respecting traditions.”

Justice Michael  Kirby ABC AM program,                                                                       Thursday, 24 November 2005     (8:16 AM South Australian time.)


I hope that readers have found this information useful.

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

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

 The Legacy of Cowards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yarra at seaIn the ANZAC tradition: HMAS YARRA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

One man can sometimes make a difference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


SARAH’S STORY: Hounded to death by Centrelink.

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

 (Source: )

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Why Centrelink has “No Jurisdiction”:

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

(Source: )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

 “What is the right to life?”

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

 Poniatowska ([2013] HCA 43.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Did 100,000 Diggers or the valiant crew of HMAS Yarra die for ‘Perksgate’?

 “As elected officials holding public office, Parliamentarians are expected to act with integrity in accordance with the public trust placed in them.” (Source: Page 12, Auditor-General’s Report No.3, 2009-10. Audit Report – Administration of Parliamentarians’ Entitlements by the Department of Finance and Regulation.)

(Perksgate) As the September 14th 2009 email extract below reveals, the Australian Federal Police refused to investigate members of the Federal Parliament who, in 2007, may have rorted a staggering $4.64 Million from the “Parliamentary Entitlements Fund”.

The Federal Police have assisted Centrelink to investigate hundreds of thousands of anonymous reports made on the fraud reporting hotline. However, when federal politicians apparently rorted $4.64 million of our money, the Federal Police flatly refused to investigate even though the swindle had been tabled in Parliament and reported by the news media. Why was there no investigation? Because of “government protocols”, i.e. the Minchin Protocol, and “political debate and inquiry” by the rorters!


After the Auditor-Generalworked out that 144 federal MPs had ripped off the

After the Auditor-General worked out that 144 federal MPs may have ripped off the ” Parliamentary Entitlements Fund” to the tune of $4.64 MILLION, the Federal Police again refused to investigate citing almost the same legally invalid reasons as in 2004.

By choosing to ignore these blatantly gross injustices, we are passively choosing to let self-serving politicians continue with their destruction of the ANZAC Legacy?

Michael Kirby, a former High Court judge, once stated that “As a principle, the rule of law is essential. However, it is only so as it safeguards and promotes the higher principle of justice. Justice for all. Harmony in society and its laws through justice. Not simply justice for the majority, as expressed in democratic elections. Justice also for minorities. Justice, especially for vulnerable and unpopular minorities. It is when minorities demand the protection of the law that our discipline, the law is tested.” [1]

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

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


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

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

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

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


The following text outlines why doing nothing can be a serious crime:


Division 3 and 4

Division 3 — General

3.1   Elements

(1)  An offence consists of physical elements and fault elements.

(2)  However, the law that creates the offence may provide that there is no fault element for one or more physical elements.

(3)  The law that creates the offence may provide different fault elements for different physical elements.

3.2   Establishing guilt in respect of offences

In order for a person to be found guilty of committing an offence the following must be proved:

  • the existence of such physical elements as are, under the law creating the offence, relevant to establishing guilt;
  • in respect of each such physical element for which a fault element is required, one of the fault elements for the physical element.

Note 1:       See Part 2.6 on proof of criminal responsibility.

Note 2:       See Part 2.7 on geographical jurisdiction.

Division 4 — Physical elements

4.1   Physical elements

A physical element of an offence may be:

conduct; or

  • a result of conduct; or
  • a circumstance in which conduct, or a result of conduct, occurs.

(2)  In this Code:

“conduct ” means an act, an omission to perform an act or a state of affairs.

“engage in conduct ” means:

  • do an act; or

(b)  omit to perform an act.

“an omission” or “omit to perform an act” – as in not provide evidence in a federal tribunal trial because it would undermine the Federal Government’s case!

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

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

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

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

NOTE: The short link for this URL is:

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

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

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

(c) Check this out:

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



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

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

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

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

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

This precedent requires that:

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

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

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

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

“Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat”

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

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



      – ASK THEM!

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

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

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for justice in Australia.


everyone shall be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty
Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments