Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity”: Are my claims credible or just hot air?

When it comes to my claims about Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity, are my Ronald’s space claims and YouTube videos credible or just a load of hot air, i.e. pure garbage?

To start your search to answer that question, type my name into the search box at the South Australian Teachers registration Board public register. This is at:

http://crmpub.trb.sa.edu.au/teachersearch.aspx

OKAY, now that you know that I am a registered teacher, check this out:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-30/treasurer-joe-hockey-wins-defamation-case-against-fairfax/6582900

Yes, Joe Hockey really did score $200,000 for a “Treasurer for sale” tweet on Twitter on June $29th this year.

Did you know that if you post lies on the Internet, you can face serious criminal charges? The legal reality is that if I posted defamatory information, or maliciously false information, then I could face jail terms of up to 7 years. The laws that apply to what I post on this website also apply to you as your state may have similar laws to the two examples below from the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act. (1935)

As the laws below reveal, deliberately defaming someone is a serious crime and if the views expressed in this report were maliciously untrue, then I would have broken the law and could be facing up to 7 years in jail.

Section 257—Criminal Defamation.

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

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

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

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

Division 1—Punishment for certain common law offences

270—Punishment for certain offences

    (2)    Any person convicted of any of the following common law offences, that is to say, any conspiracy to cheat or defraud, or to extort money or goods, or falsely to accuse of any crime, or to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of public justice, shall be liable to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding seven years.

As a Christian I am very mindful that:

  God’s 9th Commandment, “You shall not bear false witness”, also prohibits deliberately telling lies in order to wilfully defame other people.

  • Proverbs 12:17 also says, “When you tell the truth, justice is done, but lies lead to injustice”, i.e. wilfully defaming people is completely counter-productive.
  • Proverbs 31: 8 – 9 places an obligation on all Christians to, “Speak up for people who cannot speak for themselves. Protect the rights of all who are helpless. Speak for them and be a righteous judge. Protect the rights of the poor and needy.”

I have therefore compiled this report as an act of faith for I believe that when God hears cries for help, He sometimes answers by sending the most unlikely people to provide that helps. If for some reason, professional ‘Good Samaritans’ are not available, then God may scrape the bottom of the barrel by using people are willing to fools for Christ’s sake.

I am such a fool and I am available.

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

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

Part c: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity:- “There is a very fine line between an elite police force and an elitist police force and that line is the bottomless crevasse of corruption.”

EXTRACT:There is a very fine line between an elite police force and an elitist police force and that line is the bottomless crevasse of corruption. Whilst elite police forces do not step over that line, for elitist police forces, doing so is Standard Operating Procedure.”

Either we believe in and practice “Equality before the law” or we have an 12th century elitist justice system that only penalized those not favoured with the protection of the police when laws are broken. Elitist justice is, in law, not justice but rather Ultra Vires justice, i.e. the undermining of the law!

[The short link for this URL is http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-nB  ]

Below is the text of yet another email to the Australian Federal police Commissioner in which additional case-law decisions are added to those previously submitted, for the purpose of either ensuring that politicians are treated before the law in the same manner, or conversely, welfare recipients receive the same treatment that federal politicians receive.

Federal Parliament is back in session, complete with a new Speaker. As far as 226 politicians are concerned, it is a case of “case closed” so lets move on. However, unless politicians who may have rorted the system are held accountable in the same manner as everyone else, then it is not a case of “case closed”.

10th August 2015

Attention Commissioner Colvin,

RE: Complaint to the request by Andrew Wilkie MP for an investigation by the Federal Police into the extent to which members of the Federal parliament may be making unlawful Entitlements claims.

As I mentioned in a previous email transmitted on 8th August 2015, it is my contention that any inquiry into such unlawful conduct should extend back at least as far as 1st July 1996. This update of that email looks at addition case studies which I believe you should factor into your decision-making processes on this issue, especially given that this is a public complaint that may be used by any person seeking to rebut any prosecution brought against them by the Federal Government.

Therefore, I recommend that this request for an investigation into the issues outlined below be given very careful consideration.

  1. The Australian National Audit Office 1997 Report of Performance Audit of Ministerial Travel Claims (Report #27, 22 December 1997) indicates that a review of ALL claims by federal politicians as far back as the Howard Government coming to power in 1996 is necessary. The situation by mid-1997 was so bad that the above audit was deemed necessary.
  2. Auditor-General’s Report No.3 2009-10. Audit Report – Administration of Parliamentarians’ Entitlements by the Department of Finance and Regulation. This report of 144 Members of the Parliament revealed that by “double-dipping”, Members had wrongly claimed a massive $4.64 million.
  3. On page 12 of the above report, the Auditor-General deemed it appropriate to quote from a report into rorting by British MPs, i.e. that “…members of parliament should act with the integrity expected of them”
  4. Current issues surrounding the resignation of the (former) Speaker in the House of Representatives and comments by the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and other members of the Federal Parliament raise serious questions about the integrity and probity of some of the current members of the federal parliament when it comes to claiming “entitlements”, e.g. Bronwyn Bishop chartering of aircraft, and Tony Abbott reportedly flying 1st class, at tax-payers expense, to his own book launch.

The difference between “elite” and “elitist.”

There is a very fine line between an elite police force and an elitist police force and that line is the bottomless crevasse of corruption. Whilst elite police forces do not step over that line, for elitist police forces, doing so is Standard Operating Procedure. When dealing with complaints or community concerns raised with the Australian Federal Police, the official function of the Federal Police is to uphold the law and base decisions, in each case, upon statute law. It is an abuse of power to presume that the political “gravity/sensitivity” of any complaints against federal politicians can simply be set aside because of political flow-on implications that may be implicit in any complaint or concern expressed about the alleged or perceived crimes.

‘Functus Officio’: AFP complaints handling procedures requires that before a file can be closed, it must be processed in accordance with ‘Due Process of Law.” This raises the question as to the extent to which AFP decision-makers in the AFP complaints handling section ’cut and paste responses from one decision to another without the prerequisite ‘Due Process of Law’ that would enable a decision to be finalized and a case or complaint file closed.

The problem of a ‘cut and paste approach to complaints processing from one case to another was raised for the consideration of the Full Federal Court in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZQHH (2012) 200 FCR 223; [2012] FCAFC 45.

In that case, a review of 10 ‘blanket’ visa application rejections was challenged because the official reviewing these applications used a template to record his assessment of the claims made by all the asylum seekers, repeating verbatim the

materials relied on to reject the generic claims in each case. One of the asylum seekers claimed that the decision was void on the ground of apprehended bias.

Justice Rares and Justice Jagot did not accept this viewpoint. Both judges were of the opinion that the use of a template to express the reasons for rejecting the generic claims did not give rise to an apprehension of bias. In their view, a fair-minded observer would be aware that the reviewer had arrived at his conclusion based on information about conditions in Afghanistan and believed that the reviewer had evaluated each of the generic claims and the in-country information as it was relevant to all the visa applications. These two judges decided that the use of generic information to evaluate and decide those claims generically was a valid process, i.e. each assessment was consistent and fair (at 238 [46]-[47]).

The key phrase in that decision was that Justice Rares and Justice Jagot were satisfied that that the reviewer had evaluated EACH of the “generic” claims.

Justice Flick gave a dissenting decision in favour of the applicant. He observed (at [79]): “

Whatever the ground of review relied upon, a common question in need of resolution is whether a decision-maker has discharged the responsibilities entrusted to him in accordance with law. He may fail to do so if independent consideration has not been given to the particular case before him. The repetition of previously expressed reasons or findings may be an indicator that independent consideration has not been given to a particular case; but the repetition of reasons and findings does not, of itself, dictate such a conclusion.

At paragraph 89 Justice Flick also noted that:

the verbatim repetition of findings and reasons previously expressed should serve as a reason for caution when a court is called upon to review the decision-making process.” In Flick J’s view, the informed bystander “would be more likely to conclude that the Independent Reviewer has simply ‘copied’ his earlier findings — probably without even re-reading them — let alone considering whether the same findings should again be made” (at 250 [97]).

Any decision-making process that ignores Due Process of Law makes a joke out this process. Commenting upon this court decision in a briefing session to senior government administrators during a lecture titled “Procedural fairness points of law”, the lecturing barrister, Ms Juliet Lucy, stated; “It is helpful to remember that the concern of the law is to avoid practical injustice and the decision maker should therefore focus upon ensuring, as far as possible, that this occurs.

Citations quoted in support of the above statement:

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 6, Gleeson CJ at [37]; Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd (ACN 010 634 689) (2013) 295 ALR 638, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ at 682 [157]

Ms Lucy also made the following comment which is of direct relevance to the observed practice of the Australian Federal Police using boilerplate text to respond to complaints from the public:

In the context of the statutory requirement that the Refugee Review Tribunal invite an applicant to attend a hearing under s 425(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), it has been held that the interpretive standard must be such that is not “a hollow shell or an empty gesture”.

Citations quoted in support of the above statement:

Mazhar v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1759 at [31], 183 ALR 188, Goldberg J at 195; SZJZS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 102 ALD 318, Flick J at 342 [29]. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SZFDE [2006] FCAFC 142, French J at [92] (dissenting, but approved in SZFDE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 232 CLR 189); Applicant NAHF of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 128 FCR 359; [2003] FCA 140, Hely J at [35].

In addition to the above case study references in regard to the validity of the Australian Federal Police decision-making processes when dealing with allegations of possible rorting by federal politicians are comments found in the Administrative Review Council – 2003 Judicial Review Discussion Paper which considered the issue of what constitutes unreasonable decisions that provide valid grounds for an appeal of a decision.

This legal discussion paper contains a plethora of references to the issue of Unreasonable Decisions, a matter of extremely grave concern when it comes to the manner in which the Australian Federal Police appears to be handling complaints made against members of the Australian Federal Parliament. Pages 52 -53 -Grounds for Court Review states:

4.16      Categories of unreasonableness include:

  • that the decision was devoid of plausible justification[1]
  • the giving of excessive or inadequate weight to a consideration[2]
  • making an erroneous finding of fact on a point of importance[3]
  • failure to have proper regard to departmental policy or representation[4]
  • the unnecessarily harsh effect of the decision[5]
  • failure to give genuine, proper and realistic consideration to a matter including making adequate inquiry as to facts[6]
  • Demonstrable inconsistency with other decisions;[7]and discrimination without a rational distinction.[8]

The points above are extremely relevant to the issues raised in my complaints to the Federal Police in 2004, 2009 and in the current complaints concerning the conduct of federal politicians.

The Matters of Law implicit in my 2004 complaint to the Federal Police:

  1. Did the Member for Makin, Patricia Draper violate s4 and s135 when she falsely claim a travel allowance for a person who was not her defacto spouse?
  2. If the answer to the above question is affirmative, did Prime Minister John Howard

Violate s149.1 i.e. Obstruction of public officials in the performance of their duties, by using his position as the prime Minister to obstruct and pervert the course of Justice?

Parallel with this is the issue of whether or not he was an accessory after the fact?

  1. In regard to the questions concerning the alleged enforcement of “Performance Indicator Targets, this activity was almost certainly an unlawful abuse of power and therefore the answer to my question concerning the possibility that any fatalities may be “felony murders” is that under various state laws, these deaths were homicides.
  2. As pointed in a previous email, these deaths are inconsistent with s279 (4) of the Western Australian Crimes Act, s302 (40 of the QLD Crimes Act and s18 (1) of the NSW Crimes Act.
  3. What is now know is that in the 10-year period 1997 – 2006, there were 23,254 suicides and the largest identifiable group were unemployed people, i.e. approximately 1 in 3 which equates to about 7,700 fatalities.
  4. Precisely identifying the number of post breaching fatalities most definitely is a grave matter of national sensitivity, especially since prompt action by the AFP in 2004 may have saved a significant proportion of those lives plus put an end to any subsequent breaching triggered fatalities.
  5. Have thousands of welfare recipients died simply because the AFP put repeatedly chose to put [political] “gravity/sensitivity” ahead of Rule of Law?

The matters implicit in my 2009 “Perksgate” complaint were an even simpler Matter of Law:

  1. Did 144 members of the federal parliament violate s4 and/or provisions within s135 and by doing so, collectively obtain a benefit that each was not entitled to receive?
  2. Each case of a politician needed to be reviewed impartially, and where there a case for prosecution, charged should have been laid.
  3. It is NOT the function of the Federal Police to use political public relations hype when dealing with possible rorting that may violate s4 or s135 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995).
  • Since that law came into effect, more than 50,000 welfare recipients have been prosecuted and each case is a binding precedent for determining the manner in which the Federal Police deal with possible rorting by politicians.

The reasons used by Federal Agent Pearce to justify not investigated the 2007 ‘Perksgate’ rort, a well publicized activity, were spurious and without legal substance and merit. Like Federal Agent Denley’s letter of July 7th 2004, the reasons given for not investigating were, from both a statute law and case perspectives, so illogical that the following case law finding may be a relevant precedent to argue that the AFP was a gross abuse of power for the purpose of protecting those who rorted their printing allowance by “double-dipping” to fund the printing of election material in the run up to the 2007 federal election.

‘In Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1989) 170 CLR 1, 36 it was said by Justice Brennan that the decision must amount to ‘an abuse of power’; in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273, 290, Mason CJ and Deane J used the words ‘so devoid of plausible justification that no reasonable person could have taken that course’.

Below, I again re-submit the publically available details relating to Ms Bronwyn Bishop’s legal obligations when chartering aircraft and her reported failure to meet those obligations. Under no circumstances will I accept another “gravity/sensitivity” response. For this reason, this email, like the previous emails is a public document that can be used by any person who deems it appropriate to so.

Whatever your decision, it is highly likely to be tested in courts across the nation as, and/or when people facing allegations of defrauding the Commonwealth, i.e. violating s135, are called to answer those charges in a court of law.

Ronald Medlicott – registered teacher and a Christian lay advocate for justicein Australia.

[1] Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379.

[2] Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24.

[3] GTE (Australia) v Brown (1986) 14 FLR 309.

[4] Nikac v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1988) 20 FCR 65.

[5] Edelsten v Wilcox and FCT (1988) 83 ALR 99.

[6] Although according to Wilcox J in Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 159
CLR 550, 570, ‘[t]he circumstances in which a decision will be invalid for failure to inquire are…strictly limited’.

[7] Kruse v Johnston [1898] 2 QB 91; Fares Rural Meat and Livestock Co Pty Ltd (1990) 96 ALR 153.

[8] The Council of the City of Parramatta v Pestell (1972) 128 CLR 305.

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

Part 8(b): Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity. Has “Bronnie”, the former Queen of the skies cleared the way for a Federal Police investigation?

When it comes to Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity, I anticipate that the Australian Federal Police will continue with the same policies and practices in regard to the manner in which some federal politicians abuse the “Entitlements Fund”, a pool of money worth billions over the last 20 or 30 years. It is my intention to forward this posting to the Federal Police with a request that Andrew Wilkie’s request to audit back to 2010 be extended back to 1st July 1996.

Anyone who wished to copy the URL below and email to the Federal Police is welcome to support this call. The Federal Police email address is:

AOCC-Liaison-Ops-Support@afp.gov.au

[ The short link URL copy is:  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-nv  ]

Tonight,s posting scopes down to look at the fine details of the excuse “I made a mistake” that politicians regularly roll out if caught out with claims of questionable legality. This posting takes a layman’s view of what the Rules for Entitlement Claims say, what the law says, and looks at how “Chopper-gate” stacks up against these rules and laws.

How valid was Bronwyn Bishop’s “I made a mistake” explanation for chartering a jet in November 2014 and a helicopter in 2015?

The answer to that question is to be found in the Parliamentary Entitlements website run by the Department of Finance. A quick quiz at the website and it soon becomes apparent that although our federal politicians collectively have millions of dollars’ worth of benefits up for grabs, every one of those benefits comes with readily available, easily understood rules that must be obeys.

To help with understanding and obeying those rules, there are as many as 5 different layers of help available including handbooks, 3 Help Desk systems, and perhaps most significant of all, a ‘last line of defence’ (for us taxpayers) in that in some “special” cases, the permission of a government minister is required, e.g. CHARTERING AIRCRAFT. The rules for chartering aircraft are set out below:

4.6.1 Electorate Charter – the Entitlement

“Senators (except Senators from the Australian Capital Territory) are entitled to use charter transport at Australian Government expense within and for the service of their State or Territory. Members representing electorates of 10,000 km2 or more are entitled to use charter transport within and for the service of their electorate.””

This rule is 2 parts:

  1. Senators, having a statewide electorate, can charter an aircraft to fly within their state on official business.
  2. Members representing electorates of 10,000 km2 or more are entitled to use charter transport within and for the service of their electorate.”

So here is a summary of how the “Entitlements” claims system works.

Step 1 in the system is that politicians have access to handbooks, and on-line copies of the information in the handbooks.

“Office holders’ entitlements handbooks provide information on the additional entitlements provided to certain office holders. Generally, references to the specific entitlements of an office holder are provided, but in some cases, the full entitlement of an office holder (that is, as an office holder and as a Senator or Member) is discussed.”

Step 2 in the Entitlements claims process is that politicians are advised that “These handbooks complement the Senators and Members’ Entitlements handbook and are for general information only.

Entitlements summaries outline the full suite of entitlements available to the relevant officer holder (that is, as an office holder and as a Senator or Member).”

Step 3 provided the crucial advice that makes the difference between a ‘mistake’ and ‘fraud’, i.e. rorting of entitlement for politicians are expressly told:

Where you are unsure of an entitlement, please contact your Entitlements Manager before taking any action or decision on the basis of any material contained in these publications alone.

LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP: According to the Rules of Entitlement, exactly when must a politician contact an Entitlements Manager? The magic word is BEFORE spending taxpayers money. If they opt not to first check their right to claim an entitlement, then it is a conscious, i.e. deliberate, ‘Act of Omission’ which, when public monies are involved is one or more crimes which I shall identify later on.

Level 1 – Check the handbook “before” you spend any of the taxpayers money: If a politician loses a handbook, or even the entire set, they can whip out the laptop, iPad, or even a mobile phone and download a new handbook from:

http://www.maps.finance.gov.au/entitlements_handbooks/senators-and-members/Senators_and_Members_Entitlements.asp

Level 2 – “If in doubt”, contact Help Desks (plural) staffed with people who are paid to provide expert advice on what can and cannot be claimed. In Bronwyn Bishop’s case, apart from the generic Help Desks, she also has an Assistant Secretary of the Department of Finance, Mr Jason Ford, who is the head of the “Entitlements Manager” section within the Department of Finance. His job is to oversee a team of people who are experts in helping federal politicians understand what can and what cannot be claimed.

Level 2 – Option #1: Talk to the Entitlements Manager’s top dog, a bureaucrat named Jason Ford whose contact details are as follows:

Phone:           02 6215 3403          Fax:                02 6267 3279

Email:             jason.ford@finance.gov.au

Level 2 – Option #2: Talk to the Entitlements Manager for Members of Parliament from New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland, Ms Lauren Barons, whose contact details are as follows:

Phone            02 6215 3426          Fax                 02 6267 3016

Email             lauren.barons@finance.gov.au

Level 2 – Option #3: If the designated Entitlements Manager for a specific state is not available, talk to one of the other designated Entitlements Managers who support other states:

Shane McGaughey Entitlements Manager – QLD & SA

Phone            02 6215 3827

Email             shane.mcgaughey@finance.gov.au

Deesiree Kaufline Entitlements Manager – QLD & SA

Phone            02 6215 3640          Fax                 02 6267 3419

Email             deesiree.kaufline@finance.gov.au

If Mr Ford, Ms Barons, Mr McGaughey, or Ms Kaufline were not available, or if Bronwyn Bishop or her advisory staff, did not wish to speak to such high level experts there were still at least 3 other options available. At the next 2 levels, politicians like Ms Bishop would practically be slumming because they would be talking to people who actually are working in Parliament House. Check this link out:

http://www.maps.finance.gov.au/contacts/maps_contacts.html#offices

Level 3 – Option 1 during Parliament House Office during Sitting Periods

“M&PS has an office open in Parliament House during sitting weeks, staffed by a member of the Entitlements Management Branch, to assist with entitlements enquiries. The office is located on the Ministerial side of the Members’ Hall, adjacent to the Pool of Reflection.”

Accessing this literally ‘in-house’ human resource, i.e. the local experts, is perhaps best done via the “Walknet” system. This is a truly unique truly whereby a politician, or a member of their advisory staff, stands up and undertakes a health exercise activity known as walking. The politician, or their appointed staff advisor, follows the above directions to the office of the on-site, in-house Entitlements Managers. [ Health warning: Care must be taken not to fall into the Pool of Reflection ]

Hours of operation in Parliament House during Sitting Periods.

Monday 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm
Tuesday to Thursday
9:00 am to 12:00 pm
1:00 pm to 5:00 pm

Phone:           02 6277 7040

Email:             Parliament House  – 180 KB (Hotlink from the webpage to a booklet)

Level 3 – Option 2: Entitlements Management Branch Help Desk

Phone            02 6215 3542          Fax                 02 6267 3279

Email             emb@finance.gov.au

Level 3 – Option 3: The Staff Help Desk

Phone            02 6215 3333          Fax                 02 6267 3271

Email             mpshelp@finance.gov.au

Like the Leyland Brothers 30 – 40 years ago, members of the Federal Parliament like to travel, especially since taxpayers are footing the cost for much of this travel. In November 2014 when Bronwyn Bishop hired a small commuter jet plane, and when she recently hired a helicopter when in Melbourne, local Entitlements Management support would have been useful. It was in fact available as a 4th level source of information:

Level 4 – Commonwealth Parliament Offices and State and Territory Managers

  1. Australian Capital Territory:       Stephen Frost
  2. Phone            02 6277 6087          Email              M&PS-ACT@finance.gov.au
  3. New South Wales: Sharon Brigden
  4. Phone            02 8289 9900          Fax     02 8289 9919          Email M&PS-NSW@finance.gov.au
  5. Victoria                                 Toni Rikys
  6. Phone            03 9660 6600          Fax     03 9660 6619          Email M&PS-VIC@finance.gov.au
  7. Northern Territory Ainslie Ward
  8. Phone            08 8941 4133          Fax     08 8941 4199          Email M&PS-NT@finance.gov.au
  9. Queensland             Daniel Anderson
  10. Phone            07 3001 8900          Fax     07 3001 8999          Email            M&PSQld@finance.gov.au
  11. South Australia                   Ben Hooper
  12. Phone            08 8205 1000          Fax     08 8205 1099          Email            M&PSSA@finance.gov.au
  13. Tasmania                              Katie Tchia
  14. Phone            03 6231 0734          Fax     03 6231 2934          Email M&PS-Tas@finance.gov.au
  15. Western Australia  Rosie O’Hare
  16. Phone            08 9260 5000          Fax     08 9260 5085          Email M&PS-WA@finance.gov.au

Level 5 – Option –Write a letter to the Help Desk team

Ministerial and Parliamentary Services
Department of Finance
John Gorton Building
King Edward Terrace PARKES ACT 2600

Level 6:- The Chartergate Rule 4.6.5 Option.

Note that this is mandatory if you want to charter a passenger jet or helicopter.

You will find the Chartergate Rule 4.6.5 option at:

http://maps.finance.gov.au/entitlements_handbooks/senators-and-members/Part_Four_Travel_-_4.6_Charter_Entitlements.asp#FourSixFive

Scroll down the page until you come to this Rule:

4.6.5 Special Charter

“The Special Minister of State may approve the use of charter transport within Australia in special cases, e.g., where there are no scheduled commercial services or where the use of scheduled commercial services would result in undue delays. A Senator or Member wishing to use charter transport in such circumstances should obtain the approval of the Special Minister of State, before travel is undertaken.”

 

Note the last sentence: “A Senator or Member wishing to use charter transport in such circumstances should obtain the approval of the Special Minister of State, before travel is undertaken.”

Senator Michael Ronaldson is the Special Minister for State, and if Bronwyn Bishop, or any other member of the Federal parliament wants to charter a jet plane or a helicopter, they need his permission to so BEFORE doing so. UNLESS of course, the politician wants to pay for the ride out of their own pocket. They do not need permission to do that.

Senator Ronaldson’s contact details are as follows: Phone 02 6277 7820

Fax                  02 6273 4140

Email              via http://www.aph.gov.au/Senator_Ronaldson

Mail:               PO Box 6100
Senate
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Since Senator Ronaldson, a former Barrister, i.e. a lawyer, is the Special Minister for State, the Minister for Veterans Affairs, and an elected member of the Liberal Party since April 1994, it is therefore highly likely that Senator Ronaldson is listed in the ‘speed-dial’ contacts list on Bronwyn Bishop’s mobile phone. It is an equal certainty, that Bronwyn Bishop has his office and/or personal email address.

The phrase “If in doubt” is the legal loophole that politicians try to exploit with the “I made a mistake” claim. However, they are not the first people to try to avoid accountability for the commission of crimes by using that excuse. In the last posting, buried in 40 pages of information was an extract from the High Court’s Boughey Decision which I’m repeating here:

Boughey v R [1986] HCA 29; (1986) 161 CLR 10 “…ought to have known”

The phrase “…ought to have known” in paragraph 31 of Justice Gibbs summary of the Boughey murder trial appeal in 1986 validates both the above comments in relation to what politicians who wrongly certify travel and other expenses claims. In paragraph 14 of the findings, the judge said “It In the context of the content of the element necessary to constitute common law murder, the gravity of the charge requires that the content of the requirement that an accused knew of the probability or likelihood that his acts would cause death be not discounted.”

[TRANSLATION: Did Dr Boughey, the person who was accused of the murder know that his actions in strangling the victim, Miss Begum Mahjabi Ali, allegedly for a heightened sexual experience, was dangerous?]

In paragraph 32 Justice Gibbs goes on to state “The starting point of the inquiry on the question whether an accused ought to have known that his or her actions were likely to cause death must be the knowledge, the intelligence and, where relevant, the expertise which the particular accused actually possessed. The relevant question is not whether some hypothetical reasonable person in the position of the accused would have appreciated the likely consequences of the applicant’s act. It is what the particular accused, with his or her actual knowledge and capacity, ought to have known in the circumstances in which he or she was placed.”

MY COMMENT: In the Boughey murder case, the defendant was a medical practitioner, i.e. a doctor, who had specific expertise that applied to his actions. This case is a very valid precedent for considering Bronwyn Bishop’s claim of “I made a mistake” because of her professional skills and experience. Bronwyn Bishop is the longest serving female in the Federal Parliament with 28 years of experience that cannot be casually ignored as the following statement by Justice Gibbs clearly indicates: the question whether an accused ought to have known that his or her actions were likely to cause death must be the knowledge, the intelligence and, where relevant, the expertise which the particular accused actually possessed.

The key principle at issue here is in the phrase “…the knowledge, the intelligence and, where relevant, the expertise which the particular accused actually possessed”  and its relevance to Bronwyn Bishop’s education, intelligence, professional skills and experience as a member of the Federal Parliament.

  1. “Knowledge”:         a federal legislator for 28 years.
  2. “Intelligence”:        a university graduate with a law degree.
  3. “Experience”:          28 years’ experience in making Entitlements claims – she is one of the longest serving politicians in the Federal Parliament and therefore can be considered to be one of the most experienced members in matters such as monthly and bi-annual compliance certification obligations.

As Judge Gibbs put it so clearly, “The relevant question is not whether some hypothetical reasonable person in the position of the accused would have appreciated the likely consequences of the applicant’s act. It is what the particular accused, with his or her actual knowledge and capacity, ought to have known in the circumstances in which he or she was placed.”

The logic answer that may be reasonably adduced by any ordinary reasonable person serving on a jury is that Bronwyn Bishop knew precisely what she was doing when she chartered the 2 aircraft and it is highly likely that she avoided contacting any of the Entitlements Management support team because she did not wish to be told that she could not charter the aircraft at taxpayers expense.

What laws may have been broken? The law is the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995)

Section 4 deals with defining act of commission or acts of omission as “voluntary” “physical elements” that constitute unlawful acts.

4.1 Physical elements

            (1)  A physical element of an offence may be:

                     (a)  conduct; or

                    (b)  a result of conduct; or

                     (c)  a circumstance in which conduct, or a result of conduct, occurs.

            (2)  In this Code:

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

engage in conduct means:

                     (a)  do an act; or

                    (b)  omit to perform an act.

4.2 Voluntariness

            (1)  Conduct can only be a physical element if it is voluntary.

            (2)  Conduct is only voluntary if it is a product of the will of the person whose conduct it is.

135.1 General dishonesty

Obtaining a gain:

            (1)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

                     (a)  the person does anything with the intention of dishonestly obtaining a gain from another person; and

                    (b)  the other person is a Commonwealth entity.

Penalty:               Imprisonment for 5 years.

Causing a loss:

            (3)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

                     (a)  the person does anything with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss to another person; and

                    (b)  the other person is a Commonwealth entity.

Penalty:               Imprisonment for 5 years.

                   (5)            A person is guilty of an offence if:

                     (a)  the person dishonestly causes a loss, or dishonestly causes a risk of loss, to another person; and

                    (b)  the first‑mentioned person knows or believes that the loss will occur or that there is a substantial risk of the loss occurring; and

                     (c)  the other person is a Commonwealth entity.

Penalty:               Imprisonment for 5 years.

 

Whether it is welfare recipients or politicians, rorting is a very serious crime. The refusals of the Australian Federal Police to investigate politicians is in itself a serious crime, i.e. an act of omission that demonstrates shocking political bias. The Australian National Audit Office 1997 Report of Performance Audit of Ministerial Travel Claims (Report #27, 22 December 1997) indicates that a review of ALL claims by federal politicians as far back as the Howard Government coming to power in 1996 is essential, i.e. as far back as at least 1st July 1996. To do less than this is to invalid all prosecutions of welfare recipients during this period, i.e. about 35,000 – 40,000 prosecutions. Such massive bias against welfare recipients is totally unacceptable. Paragraph 5 of the constitution states This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under   the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything   in the laws of any State;”. Neither politicians nor the Federal Police can exempt politicians from being investigated for alleged rorting, and if the findings of an impartial investigation reveal grounds for prosecution, then it is a matter for the courts, not the Parliament, to determine the guilt of innocence of those accused of possible rorting. The question in the case of Bronwyn Bishop is whether or not there is enough evidence to justify possible charges? Having looked at what Bronwyn Bishop’s due diligence obligations were, her professional qualifications and experience, my personal viewpoint is that it would be a gross miscarriage of justice for every welfare recipient ever accused if she were to be exempted from prosecution because of the “gravity/sensitivity” of the case; a reality as is shown by the 2 documents below.

ON July 7th 2004, the Federal Police refused to investigate both possible rorting by a member of the Howard Government, and the possibility that John Howard had used his position as the Prime Minister to Obstruct justice, i.e. a possible crime under statute 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. Note the phrase “gravity/sensitivity” and the fact that Federal Agent Denley did not deny that the law may have been broken.

July 04 denley letter page 1

The email below is almost a boiler-plate text repeat in parts of Federal Agent Denley’s letter above. Again note the use of “gravity/sensitivity” in this response to a request to investigate yet another Auditor-General’s report that politicians had ripped of taxpayers, this time to the tune of $4.64 million!

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

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

Ronald Medlicott – Registered teacher and a Christian advocate for welfare justice.

 

 

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

Part 8(a): Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity. Has “Bronnie”, the former Queen of the skies cleared the way for a Federal Police investigation?

When it comes to Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity: Has “Bronnie”, the  Federal parliament’s former ‘Queen of the skies‘, cleared the way for a Federal Police investigation?

The web page is still not formatted but my priority is get this page on the web BEFORE emailing the text below to the AFP’ “Top Cop”,  Commissioner Andrew Colvin.

[ NOTE: Te short link URL for this posting is:  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-ng  ]

ANYONE facing prosecution for a crime should download this posting and discuss it with their lawyer because it may contain the information needed to get criminal charges dismissed on the grounds of Manifest Ostensible Bias. Some of this content worked for Dr. Patel, who allegedly killed 87 of his patients at the Bundaberg Base Hospital in Queensland, so it could work for almost anyone, or perhaps for no-one else. If you don’t read it, you wont know.

Attn: Commissioner Andrew Colvin APM OAM

Dear Sir,

This is a request to address the problem of rorting by politicians, Centrelink fraudulent torts, and the undisclosed death toll caused by unconstitutional, human rights violating legislation.

Precise:

  1. A lay advocate, I am assisting a welfare recipient with an appeal that is just 1-step away from reaching the Federal Court. The AFP responses to my requests could be similar to the Keating Decision (HCA20 – 2013) if measures are not taken to ensure that when dealing with possible rorting of “entitlements’ by federal politicians, full compliance by the AFP with Commonwealth fraud control guidelines, the constitutional and statute laws such as s135 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act occurs in an impartial manner.
  2. “Equality before the Law means ALL members of the Federal Parliament enjoy the same rights as welfare recipients, i.e. if politicians violate s135 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, then politicians enjoy the legal ‘right’ to be investigated and prosecuted. To do less is to be biased; a CDPP case killer these days.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

As can be confirmed by the public register of the Teachers Registration of South Australia, I am a registered teacher in the state of South Australia.

Some months ago, acting as a lay advocate for a welfare recipient, I represented another person at an Administration Appeals Tribunal “trial”. At this point in time, I am in the process of perfecting a brief for the purpose of arguing an appeal with the Ombudsman or in the Federal Court. The appended file, The Emcott Report, is essentially an brain-storming exercise to assist me in clarifying the legal precedents and arguments that may be most useful when appealing to the Commonwealth Ombudsman and, if it should prove to be necessary, to the Federal Court. Once the final edit of The Emcott Report is completed, I intend to publish the booklet as a free download from Amazon or one of its on-line competitors.

The elephant in the room: Please note that this email is to considered a public document and consequently it may be used by anyone involved in a legal dispute or criminal case if they should deem it appropriate to do so.

On 26 February Senator Nick Xenophon took Ms Kathryn Campbell, the Secretary of the Department of Human Services, to task for spending $565,000 in an attempt to recover an alleged overpayment of $5,700 from a welfare recipient. Ms Campbell, attempted to justify this extravagant expenditure on the basis that she was running “a model case”. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander and I too am running a similar “model case” that could potentially benefit thousands of welfare recipients.

In considering that intention, please keep the fine details, i.e. the facts of law and case law precedents in mind when reading this communication and, as Commissioner Hanger suggested in 14.1.1 of his Home Improvement Program report, adopt a lateral thinking viewpoint in regard to the potential broader application of my efforts, not only for welfare recipients, but perhaps also for almost any other person convicted of major crimes

Case study: OSTENSIBLE BIAS in the justice system is an unacceptable DPP case killer.

[Not in the email to Commissioner Colvin:- This decision caused huge angst for the families of 87 of Dr. Jayant Patel’s patients who died, and also for the 106 patients who required corrective surgery. The problem is, there was bias in the commission of inquiry and a $5 million investigative inquiry and 50 days of testimony went down the drain.]

Keating v Morris & Ors; Leck v Morris & Ors [2005] QSC 243 (1 September 2005)

“…where the applicants seek a declaration that the first respondents are disqualified from further proceeding with the Bundaberg Commission of Inquiry on the grounds of apprehended bias – where the applicants seek a declaration that the first respondents are disqualified on the grounds of apprehended bias from proceeding to make findings or recommendations or to further call the applicants as a witness – alternatively, the applicants seek a declaration and injunction on the grounds of apprehended bias pursuant to s 43 of the Judicial Review Act 1991.

Summary of Principal Findings

[158]  I am satisfied that each of the applicants has made out a case of ostensible bias in respect of matters arising under the Inquiry’s terms of reference.

[159]  The circumstances established by the accumulated weight of evidence would give rise, in the mind of a fair minded and informed member of the community, to a reasonable apprehension of lack of impartiality on the Commissioner’s part in dealing with issues relating to each of the applicants. Similar considerations arise with respect to persons in the position of an applicant.

160]   It is not feasible to disentangle the evidence bearing directly on a particular applicant from the whole body of evidence. In any event, evidence bearing directly on one also bears on the other in many

[161]  In view of the intense interest in the Inquiry and its activities it was particularly important that it be seen to be impartial in arriving at any conclusion affecting Leck or Keating.

Bias in the justice system is totally unacceptable; a point made quite clear by Justice Moynihan in his findings in favour of the applicants. This decision had the downstream consequence that despite the deaths of 87 patients, at least 16 of which met the requirements under s303 of the Queensland Crimes Act to classified as Manslaughter*, Dr Patel’s conviction was overturned and so much evidence was turned into ‘poisoned fruit’ that he was not convicted on re-trial.

* CRIMINAL CODE 1899 – SECT 303

303 Definition of manslaughter

A person who unlawfully kills another under such circumstances as not to constitute murder is guilty of manslaughter.

At this point in time, it is a “Matter of Fact” that has tacitly not been disputed in a federal hearing that the AFP is seriously biased when upholding the law in cases involving federal politicians or the legality of federal legislation. This ostensible bias was an issue that I alluded to in the federal AAT trial and it is now possible that this bias may become a focal issue in any Federal Court appeal on behalf of the person that I am assisting.

To test the impartiality of the Australian Federal Police I hereby request that the AFP undertake the following measures:

  1. An investigation to determine whether or not the Speaker in the House, Bronwyn Bishop, violated s4, and s135 (1)(5) of the commonwealth Criminal Code Act (the Act) and fraudulently obtained a benefit that she was not entitled to receive when she certified the use of this of a chartered helicopter as being for official purposes.
  2. Both the Finance Minister, Mathias Cormann, and the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, have made public statements in support of Miss Bishop’s actions. I therefore wish to know if these two gentlemen abused their position of public office (and political status) for the purpose of obstructing an AFP investigation? (Refer s141 (1)(b) of the Act)
  3. The Australian Federal police investigate to determine whether or not Tony Abbott also violated s135 of the Act by reportedly making claims for ‘entitlements’ that he was in fact not entitled to receive:
  4. Did Tony Abbott violate Commonwealth Criminal Code Act provisions s4 and/or s135 by wrongfully claiming $1,094 in travel expenses to attend a private function, i.e. a wedding in Wangaratta, in 2006? As a former Rhodes Scholar with a law degree and at the time, a member of the Federal Parliament for 10-years, Mr Abbott should reasonably have understood that claiming expenses to attend a private function was inconsistent with the specified entitlements as per the Parliamentary Entitlements Handbook for Ministers Entitlements, a document which explains with simplicity consistent with NAPLAN Year 7 comprehension testing, the criteria for the entitlements Mr Abbott was legitimately entitled to claim.
  5. Did Tony Abbott also violate Commonwealth Criminal Code Act provisions s4 and/or s135 by wrongfully claiming $9,400 in travel expenses to attend another private function, i.e. his own book launch.

The Parliamentary Entitlements Handbooks clearly specify in very plain and simple language what can or cannot reasonably be claimed by Members of Parliament when seeking reimbursement for travel costs, or when using taxpayer-funded credit cards, e.g. Cab Charge credit cards.

All people are entitled to equality before the law and therefore the legal criteria constantly used in determining whether or not anyone should be prosecuted is precisely the same legal criteria that is required when reviewing the actions of federal politicians, even Speakers or Prime Ministers.

To use different standards is to be biased, an unwise approach as Justice Moynihan’s decision in QSC 243 made quite clear. However, there is no shortage of case law examples that provide precedents for determining if a criminal investigation and prosecution are merited. It is my belief that whether impoverished welfare recipients or prime ministers are involved, equality before the law is essential, even when issues may be of extreme “gravity/sensitivity”. If that means speaking out going where angels fear to tread, then that is what must happen. The only criteria when doing so is that the truth, and nothing but the truth, is used to ensure justice. When I made controversial statements during the trial,I did so because I could substantiate them as per Justice Rares viewpoint in Ashby, a case that I am quite familiar with:

Ashby v Commonwealth of Australia (No.4) [2-12] FCA 1411

(12 December 2012)

In paragraph 182 of Ashby v Commonwealth, Justice Rares stated:

“Cases will constantly arise in which it is not merely the right but the duty of counsel to speak out fearlessly, to denounce some person or the conduct of some person, and to use such strong terms as seem to him in his discretion to be appropriate to the occasion. From the point of view of the common law, it is right that the person attacked should have no remedy in the courts. But, from the point of view of a profession which seeks to maintain standards of decency and fairness, it is essential that the privilege, and the power of doing harm which it confers, should not be abused. Otherwise grave and irreparable damage might be unjustly occasioned. The privilege may be abused if damaging irrelevant matter is introduced into a proceeding. It is grossly abused if counsel, in opening a case, makes statements which may have ruinous consequences to the person attacked, and which he cannot substantiate or justify by evidence. It is obviously unfair and improper in the highest degree for counsel, hoping that, where proof is impossible, prejudice may suffice, to make such statements unless he definitely knows that he has, and definitely intends to adduce, evidence to support them. It cannot, of course, be enough that he thinks that he may be able to establish his statements out of the mouth of a witness for the other side.

I would particularly draw your attention to this comment by Justice Rares:

It is obviously unfair and improper in the highest degree for counsel, hoping that, where proof is impossible, prejudice may suffice, to make such statements unless he definitely knows that he has, and definitely intends to adduce, evidence to support them.

During the “trial” I pointed out that a significant proportion of some 20,914 suicides occurred amongst the ranks of unemployed people during the 10 year period 1997 to 2006. In fact I made an error and miscalculated the precise death toll which was actually 23,254.

I further stated that a “significant proportion*” of these deaths were amongst unemployed people and that the number who died after being breached was impossible to state precisely because they were unreported by Centrelink, were also secretly classified as “confidential” and “irrelevant” by the federal parliament, and the Federal Police had refused to investigate these fatalities because of the “gravity/sensitivity.”

The Howard Government’s illegal enforcement of breaching quotas may have resulted in more than 2,000 fatalities. This abuse of lawful authority would mean that all of the breaching quota triggered fatalities are homicides under states and territories criminal laws, and under Article 5 of the Rome Statute. These deaths should have been investigated by the AFP in mid-2004. Appallingly, it is possible that the failure to do so may have resulted in a far more substantial death toll since then.

The Stolen Generations policies were in place for a century but with the wisdom of hindsight, these policies are now known to have been a massive humanitarian disaster. In the same manner, but far worse, welfare penalties, commonly known as Breaching, are a disaster of holocaust proportions that merit the UNHRC classifying breaching as an act of persecution and the deaths caused by this legislation to be classified as crimes against humanity, i.e. murders.

Kenny v R (1998) 119 NTR 1 (1998) 7 NTLR 152,

His Honour instructed the jury that the mental element of murder required proof of an intent to either cause the death of Annette Miller or to cause grievous harm to her… A further ground of appeal asserted that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory, but counsel for the appellant made it clear that by this ground it was only meant that the conviction was unsafe by reason of the combined operation of errors, misdirections or omissions specified in the particular grounds. 

MY COMMENT (1): It is quite possible that as many as one third of the suicides that I referred to in the trial were a direct consequence of breaching legislation. Since federal legislation is a complex planning process, it is axiomatic that foreseeable fatalities were an acceptable consequence. The deliberate concealment of all of breaching triggered deaths, e.g. the Performance Indicator Targets (breaching quotas) triggered fatalities, makes it very hard to argue that there was not ‘intent to cause grievous harm’, up to and including recognizing the foreseeable possibly of a large number of random deaths of welfare recipients. It is quite apparent that the mindset of the Howard Government was that saving money was more important than saving lives.

MY COMMENT (2): Re: ‘The Waivergate Scam’“…the combined operation of errors, misdirections or omissions” made by Centrelink staff cost hundreds of millions each year. Waivergate is an abuse of power to get that money by any means possible, and like breaching, fatalities are “irrelevant” to unscrupulous people involved in the recovery of the overpayments. (Over $3 Billion since 1987.)

Some of the ARO/SSAT/AAT decisions involving Centrelink torts involve evidence that is either withheld, destroyed, or ignored by Centrelink officials and authorised panels of review.

EQULITY BEFORE THE LAW.

On the 25th May the Minister for Social Security, Scott Morrison, held a press conference at which he indicated that the Australian Federal Police would be assisting in the investigation of welfare recipients who may have rorted welfare entitlements. When questioned by a member of the media, Mr Morrison said “If you want to catch fish, you should fish where the fish are.” The statement was a great media sound bite; however, like Ms Campbell’s “model case”, it cuts both ways under Australian laws

s138 (3)(f) of the Evidence Act (1995) makes specific reference to human rights as set out in Schedule 2 of the Human Rights Act (1986).

  1. f) whether the impropriety or contravention was contrary to or inconsistent with a right of a person recognised by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

Article 14 of the ICCPR requires Equality before the Law and this right must be considered in the context of s138 (3)(h) of the Evidence Act:

(h)         the difficulty (if any) of obtaining the evidence without impropriety or contravention of an Australian law.

It can reasonably be adduced from the above points that Equality before the Law is itself a law that must be obeyed. Logically, since Scott Morrison has asked for the Federal Police to assist in investigating welfare recipients who may have violated s4 and s135 of the Crimes Act for the purpose of obtaining an advantage that they are not entitled to receive, the statutory obligation upon all federal agencies, including the AFP, is to provide Equality before the Law to all residents/citizens. Therefore, I am exercising my lawful right to insist that the Australian Federal Police investigate federal politicians who may have ALSO violated s4 and s135 of the Crimes Act for the purpose of obtaining an advantage that they ALSO may not have or were not entitled to receive. Federal MPs in this category include Bronwyn Bishop and Tony Abbott and all other federal MPs identified in audit reports as having failed to meet due diligence obligations and as a direct consequence, received taxpayer funded benefits or advantages that they were not entitled to receive.

Although many have repaid the monies received or reimbursed the Commonwealth for benefits received, that does not extinguish the possibility that Commonwealth criminal statutes may have been violated. To refuse to investigate, and where legally justified, prosecute is to demonstrate manifest ostensible bias against all other persons prosecuted for all other violations of Commonwealth criminal statutes. The Keating decision resulted in some 15,000 convictions being invalidated; manifest ostensible bias in favour of polituicians could extinguish every other conviction.

By all means, do investigate welfare recipients who may have intentionally ripped off the welfare system; just keep in mind that any prosecution will require that federal politicians who may have committed the same crime are (finally) treated in precisely the same manner.

Using Scott Morrison’s “…fish where the fish are” analogy, the smallest pool with the biggest fish is probably the Australian Federal Parliament. Over the last 25 years several billion in public funds have flowed through the Parliamentary Entitlements Fund ‘pool’ and at least 2 Auditor-General reports have indicated ‘irregularities’ by numerous federal politicians when claiming entitlements. The legal reality of s135 (1) (5) of the Act is that federal politicians who wish to ‘swim’ in this taxpayer funded pool have to play by the ‘Entitlements rules’ which are clearly and plainly set out in the previously mentioned entitlements handbooks. Choosing to wilfully ignore these handbooks, the entitlements management website, and the Entitlements Management managers employed by the department of finance is not, as offenders repeatedly claim, “a mistake”. Emerging details indicate that it is/was most likely, a wilful conscious act of omission that contravenes s4 and s135 of the Act. The reality is that the “mistake’ is totally inexcusable because 24/7/365, entitlements eligibility advice to politicians is available on-line at the following web address:

http://www.maps.finance.gov.au/entitlements_handbooks/

There is an old cliché that “If you wish to get away with breaking the rules, you need to know the rules.” These days, the flip-side for members of the public is that if we wish to hold politicians accountable for breaking any of the rules, we also need to know the rules! Believe me when I say that, as part of my professional development, I am working very hard to learn them so that I can teach them to my fellow teachers, social workers, and welfare recipients. I would therefore draw your attention to the following group of statements contained in the Introduction to entitlements handbook, and also on the Entitlements Management website. (My Italics and underlining for emphasis.)

Entitlements Handbooks and Summaries

A suite of entitlements handbooks and summaries is produced by Ministerial and Parliamentary Services to provide information to Senators and Members on the Parliamentary entitlements provided to them.

The information contained in these handbooks is provided for general information only. It remains the responsibility of Senators and Members to familiarise themselves with the entitlements provided to them under legislation, determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal and as otherwise provided by government.

Where you are unsure of an entitlement, please contact your Entitlements Manager before taking any action or decision on the basis of any material contained in these publications alone.

Please note very carefully the above statement which emphasises to Federal politicians that if they are unsure of an entitlement they should contact the entitlements manager BEFORE making any claims. Any decision by any politician not to do so is therefore a conscious act of will, i.e. an act of omission as specified in s4 of the Commonwealth criminal Code Act.

The phrase “Where you are unsure of an entitlement…” is not an “I made a mistake” cop-out. In the context of the other statement, “It remains the responsibility of Senators and Members to familiarise themselves with the entitlements provided to them” the onus upon those certifying benefits is the same as that placed upon welfare recipients, i.e. KNOW what you are entitled to claim before doing so.

A $5,227 bill for a helicopter ride is such an unusaual expense that a person with a law degree, i.e.Ms Bishop, would have knownthat due diligence required KNOWING if the useof this aircraft was valid BEFORE either using it, or BEFORE certifying that it was for official use under entitlements rules.In regard to Miss Bishop’s claim for a helicopter charter I would refer you to the following information concerning such entitlements.

Take note of section 4.5 Ministerial Charter Entitlement.

Ministers may use charter transport including aircraft vessels and other vehicles for their personal transport in connection with their ministerial duties. For example charter transport may be used when scheduled services are not available or the use of scheduled services would prevent the Minister from meeting an official commitment, or the use of scheduled services would not be the most cost-effective means of transport.

  1. NAPLAN testing of school students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 is undertaken to test literacy and numeracy skills. The requirements as set in the example Section 4.5 “Ministerial Charter Entitlement” may stretch the comprehension capabilities of a Year 5 student but should not be too difficult for a Year 7 student, i.e. a 12-year-old child. More for mature students of average ability in Year 9, comprehending the legal requirements as set in “official commitment” and “where scheduled services would not be the most cost effective means of transport” would probably be self-evident to these students.
  2. In point of fact, using a plagiarized version of the above ‘contact us BEFORE acting’ statement I conducted an “Accountability survey” of 12 – 14 y.o. student to test their understanding of the rules set by parents when purchasing items; in reality a test of their willingness to obey rules imposed upon them by parents and teachers. All understood the rules, but with no accountability, 16% would violate them. With accountability, this halved to just 8%, i.e. less accountability = more violations.
  • Ministers have an obligation to use the most cost effective means of scheduled transport for clearly prescribed “official commitments”, and;
  1. State Liberal Party meetings do not qualify as “official commitments” so what the official reason for the helicopter flight to Geelong?
  2. What exactly were Ms Bishop’s alternative less “cost effective” scheduled transport options when travelling to Geelong. Since it was a relatively short trip, the use of charter aircraft is highly inappropriate given that a hire car would have been far cheaper and the overall travel-time difference of no great significance.
  3. Given the clearly stated requirement to check with her Entitlements Management advisor, i.e., Ms Lauren Barons, who advises MPs from NSW, did Ms Bishop exercise the due diligence obligations that she knew of and has worked with for 28 years or did she ignore standard operating procedure and not seek advice?
  • I believe that it may be manifestly obvious to any informed person who knew the Due Diligence rules, that Ms Bishop appears to have ignored her obligations as specified in her Entitlements handbooks.
  • Any reasonable person who knows the entitlements rules would reasonably adduce that there is absolutely no way that spending $5227 on an 80 km helicopter ride to a private Liberal Party function can in any way be justified as a legitimate expense of the Speaker in the House of Representatives.
  1. Any investigation of “Chopper-gate” must therefore focus upon whether or not there is any empirical evidence that Ms Bishop made a serious effort to comply with her Due Diligence obligations or either wilfully or recklessly ignored them.
  2. Under “House Rules”, the Speaker is required to be “independent” and therefore Liberal Party fund raising events, whether state or federal branch, are not part of her official duties.
  3. Given that Miss Bishop has been a member of the Federal Parliament for 28 years, i.e. since 1987,she “ought to have known” what he due diligence certification obligations were. It is therefore highly unlikely that she actually “made a mistake” with the guidelines. (Other than getting caught out violating them?)
  • It is a reasonable probability that Ms Bishop’s “I made a mistake” excuse was used for the express purpose of avoiding accountability for her wrongful certification of the helicopter charter cost as an ‘official business’ travel expense.

Boughey v R [1986] HCA 29; (1986) 161 CLR 10 “…ought to have known”

The phrase “…ought to have known” in paragraph 31 of Justice Gibbs summary of the Boughey appeal in 1986 validates both the above comments in relation to what politicians who wrongly certify travel and other expenses claims.

“14. It is true that the meaning of the words “probable” and “likely” is liable to vary according to the context in which they are used (see Tillmanns Butcheries Pty. Ltd. v. Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union [1979] FCA 84; (1979) 42 FLR 331, at pp 346-347; Aust. Telecommunications v. Krieg (1976) 14 SASR 303, at p 311; Koufos v. C. Czarnikow Ltd. [1967] UKHL 4; (1969) 1 AC 350, at pp 410-411). In the context of the content of the element necessary to constitute common law murder, the gravity of the charge requires that the content of the requirement that an accused knew of the probability or likelihood that his acts would cause death be not discounted.”

“32 The starting point of the inquiry on the question whether an accused ought to have known that his or her actions were likely to cause death must be the knowledge, the intelligence and, where relevant, the expertise which the particular accused actually possessed. The relevant question is not whether some hypothetical reasonable person in the position of the accused would have appreciated the likely consequences of the applicant’s act. It is what the particular accused, with his or her actual knowledge and capacity, ought to have known in the circumstances in which he or she was placed.

Bronwyn Bishop is the longest serving female in the Federal Parliament with 28 years of experience that cannot be casually ignored as Justice Gibbs statement “the question whether an accused ought to have known that his or her actions were likely to cause death must be the knowledge, the intelligence and, where relevant, the expertise which the particular accused actually possessed.

The key principle at issue here is in the phrase “…the knowledge, the intelligence and, where relevant, the expertise which the particular accused actually possessed” .Bronwyn Bishop, Tony Abbott and Matthias Cormann all hold law degrees and are also experienced politicians and therefore can be considered to be experts in legal matters such as monthly and bi-annual compliance certification obligations. This applies both to due diligence obligations when certifying entitlements claims and to the foreseeably lethal impact of unconstitutional, human rights violating breaching penalties legislation; a point that I shall address at a later point in this communication.

Given their LLB qualifications, it is highly likely that both Tony Abbott and the Matthias Cormann would have been fully aware that Bronwyn Bishop’s “I made a mistake” statement may well have been a lie for the purpose of evading being charged with violating s135 provisions in the Act . This raises the legal question as to whether or not they made public statements of support forMs Bishop with the purpose of obstructing the course of justice by bringing undue pressure upon AFP leadership and investigators to comply with the Minchin Protocol, i.e. the unconstitutional “government protocols” mentioned in Federal Agent Pearce’s email (See at end of this email) rather than uphold the law. If so, then the criminal offence of “Obstructing justice” is another spin-off issue for investigators to consider in the investigation of Ms Bishop’s “Chopper-gate” claim.

149.1 Obstruction of Commonwealth public officials

(1)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a)  the person knows that another person is a public official; and

(b)  the first‑mentioned person obstructs, hinders, intimidates or resists the official in the performance of the official’s functions; and

(c)  the official is a Commonwealth public official; and

(d)  the functions are functions as a Commonwealth public official.

A former Rhodes Scholar, a law degree, an experienced journalist and long-serving member of the Federal Parliament, i.e. since 1996, Tony Abbott would have been well aware of the following information that is part of the Due Diligence checking process and which is in the Entitlements Handbooks. A former lawyer, the Finance Minister, Mathias Cormann, was appointed to the Federal Parliament in 2007 and thus has 8-years experience with the monthly certification of entitlements claims processes.

Both men should therefore be extremely familiar with the Introduction to Entitlements handbook which makes specific reference to querying entitlements with the relevant Minister. The question as to whether or not Ms Bishop complied with her due diligence obligations is a matter of law, not political status or personal acquaintance, and both men should have kept silent and let the investigation into MS Bishop’s conduct be unhindered by their interference in the case. [Italics and underlining added for emphasis]

6.5.1 Accountability

Responsibility for ensuring that the accessing of allowances and benefits is within entitlement rests with the individual Minister. The entitlements of Senators and Members, including Ministers, attract close media attention and, from time to time, criticism that they are overly generous and open to abuse. Entitlements use is frequently the subject of applications under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 received by Finance.

This means that Prime Minister Abbott and Finance Minister Cormann are important witnesses in the “Chopper-gate” investigation It is highly inappropriate for any reason whatsoever for key witnesses to be holding media conferences during active AFP investigations. As with John Howard’s support for Trish Draper in May 2004, such statements have a significant politically based vested-interest component and may publicly contradict the facts of the matter.

I consider that the following extract from the Australian National Audit Office 1997 Report of Performance Audit of Ministerial Travel Claims (Report #27, 22 December 1997) is extremely relevant to Ms Bishop’s “Chopper-gate” claims:

It is recognised that government, parliamentary, party and electorate duties place a heavy demand on ministers’ time. Nevertheless, given that ministers approve their own travel arrangements, the requirement that ministers certify their travelling allowance claims is a key control mechanism to ensure that Commonwealth funds are only spent for the intended purpose. The onus is therefore clearly on ministers to ensure the basis and accuracy of such certifications are sound and verifiable.

Note the phrase, “a key control mechanism to ensure that Commonwealth funds are only spent for the purpose intended.” That phrase is about accountability to taxpayers by the people who spend the money, i.e. the politicians.

  1. Skipping on the due diligence procedures and then claiming “I made a mistake” is a ruse that undermines the procedures deemed necessary to restrain politicians who considered that they were entitled to use their Entitlements in any way that they saw fit, i.e. rort the system.

The following extract comes from page 10 of the Hansard minutes for the community Affairs Legislation Committee hearing held on 26th February 2015. This conversation took place shortly after 9:22am (Canberra time) if you wish to obtain video footage.

Senator CAMERON: You signed off on a letter to the minister, which is part of your annual report. You signed off on 25 September that you were operating in accordance with guidelines 5.8 of the Commonwealth fraud control guidelines, 2011?

Ms Campbell: Yes.

Senator Cameron: You have a whole range of fraud control and compliance measures in place. Because when I word searched ‘compliance’ and ‘fraud’, there was a huge amount in your annual report on how you deal with these issues, isn’t there?

Ms Campbell: Yes.

[An brief aside: Reading on over the previous and subsequent pages in the Hansard minutes of that committee meeting about Centrelink providing welfare benefits to Islamic state fighters makes for some riveting reading that is far more interesting any than James Patterson or Kathy Reichs novel that I have ever read!]

There are intensive fraud control in place to deal with potential fraud by welfare recipients and the Department of Human Services devotes a great deal of time, effort and expense in the enforcement of fraud control measures, including the prosecution of welfare recipients.

That effort is now in serious danger of being undone by the way in which the Federal Police place “government protocols” ahead of rule of law. The AFP’s ‘Clayton’s Investigations’, i.e. the investigations you have when you don’t have investigations, simply do not discourage politicians from rorting.

Despite the fact that the Howard Government had apparently lied its way into power with non-core promises, it was also apparent that the mass media did not intend to hold the Howard Government accountable for these lies. Levels of integrity within the Federal Parliament appear to have plunged as a direct consequence of the mass media’s indifference. So much so, that the Office of the Auditor-General was compelled to review the conduct of Members of Parliament when it came to making claims for entitlements, i.e. Report of Performance Audit of Ministerial Travel Claims (Report #27, 22 December 1997).

  1. Just a relatively brief 21 months after the Howard Government was elected, the above mentioned Auditor-General’s report was released which emphasised the need for a significant revamping of accountability procedures in order to prevent federal politicians from making invalid claims for taxpayer funded “entitlements”.

As I have pedantically pointed out previously, it is unlawful to obstruct and pervert the course of justice and Federal Police investigations of dubious or questionable claims for taxpayer-funded entitlements that are free of political interference is therefore essential.

However, the AFP refusing to impartially investigate complaints from the public, i.e. the taxpayers who are being ripped off, because of the “gravity/sensitivity” used to excuse any investigations by rorting politicians is most definitely not about compliance with Due Process of Law. As is repeatedly stated elsewhere in this communication, the High Court’s Bhardwaj decision re “no jurisdiction, no decision” means that buck-passing criminal investigations to people who have no legal jurisdiction to do so, and who may also be key witnesses, or even co-defendants, in any criminal prosecution, makes a total mockery of the legal processes that are fundamental to the principles that underpin the conjoined twins ‘Rules of Investigation’ and ‘Due Process of Law’.

This is especially so given that the Federal Police have at times sometimes ‘outsourced’ as many as 10 police officers to assist with Centrelink investigations, e.g. in 2004 shortly after Federal Agent Denley wrote to me on the 7th July 2004 to inform me that the AFP would not conduct any investigations into the issues that I had raised with Commissioner Keelty. (AFP reference#: 3286232)

Ashby v Commonwealth of Australia (

No.4) [2-12] FCA 1411 (12 December 2012)

In 21 (c)(i) of his finding in this case, Justice Rares said:

for the reasons given in (a) and (b), this proceeding was commenced

and prosecuted in a manner that:

  • brings the administration of justice into disrepute;

At 197 in his findings Justice Rares also said:

To allow these proceedings to remain in the Court would bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right-thinking people and would be manifestly unfair to Mr Slipper:

Justice Rares comments re “brings the system into disrepute” underscores Justice Moynihan’s QSC 243 “manifest ostensible bias” decision. Investigating welfare recipients whilst refusing to investigate politicians who may have violated the same laws because of the “gravity/sensitivity” of the issue is ‘justice’ that brings the justice system into disrepute by making a absolute joke of the principle of “a fair go”.

The example below comes from s268.112 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act and relates to the International Criminal Court of Justice. However, I am sure that there are similar statutes under either other federal laws, or alternately, under state and territory laws, e.g. s319 of the NSW Crimes Act,

268.112 Perverting the course of justice

(1)  A person commits an offence if the person, by his or her conduct, intentionally perverts the course of justice in respect of the International Criminal Court.

Penalty:               Imprisonment for 5 years.

            (2)  This section does not apply to conduct that constitutes the publication of any matter.

            (3)  In this section:

perverts includes obstructs, prevents or defeats.

You should be aware that Federal Agent Denley’s letter dated 7th July 2004 and Federal agent Pearce’s email of 14 September 2009 were included in the evidence submitted in the AAT trial that I am involved in. The role of the AFP in onstructing justice was alluded to in that trial. In hindsight, I regret that neither the Crown Law lawyer or the AAT Member challenged my comments. I had pointed out that the most significant proportion of some 20,914 suicides had occurred amongst the ranks of unemployed people during the 10 year period 1997 to 2006

The Howard Government’s abuse of power with the enforcement of Performance indicator Targets, i.e. breaching quotas, saw an incredible 346,078 penalties of 13 weeks duration being issued in FY 2000-01 with zero pre-breaching or post breaching human impact risk assessments. There was simply no concern for what might happen to these people!

Just as Apartheid is a Crime against Humanity, Australia’s legislated welfare penalties are also a Crime against Humanity, for the specific purpose of breaching penalties legislation is to deliberately deprive vulnerable, impoverished people of what may be their only means of subsistence. This legislation is in clear violation of a number of human rights, e.g. Article 1.2 of the ICCPR which prohibits the withholding of the only means of subsistence from a targeted group of people, in this instance unemployed people.

Article 7 (1) (h) of the Rome Statute defines “Crimes against Humanity” as:

“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;”

Article 7 (2) (g) of the Rome Statute states: Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;
“Intentional”, as in:

  1. Decades of federal welfare penalties legislation which is constantly being tinkered with by the Federal Parliament.
  2. A confidential classification of these fatalities.
  3. “Don’t copy, don’t distribute’ suppression orders.
  4. Dismissing them as “irrelevant”.
  5. Ignoring them in a federal tribunal hearing.
  6. Authorities and politicians ignoring complaints about these deaths.

“…severe deprivation”, as in:

  1. Deliberately depriving impoverished people of their only means of subsistence and concealing the consequent death toll.
  2. Attempting in 2002 to increase the breaching penalty from 13 weeks to 26 weeks.
  3. Attempting to deprive young people under the age of 30-years of an unemployment allowance for 26 weeks.

These acts of commission, or acts of omission, take the issue of welfare penalties and their lethal impact far beyond the Rome Statute’s definition of “Persecution” and deep into the issue of Crimes against Humanity”; specifically “Genocide” which Article 6 (a) (b) & (c) define as:

“For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  • Killing members of the group
  • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;”

Which part of the above 3 points does not describe the impact of breaching?

With Centrelink refusing to disclose the number of post breaching fatalities, and with so many of the “Alphabet Warrior” agencies refusing to investigate to even determine the number of fatalities, e.g. the AFP, and with the AAT failing to use its legislative powers to compel disclosure of the precise death toll, it is possible that the UNHRC may be able to investigate these deaths under Article 17.1 (b) and/or 17 (2)(a) of the Rome Statute.

17 (1) (b)       The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;

17 (2) (a)       The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article 5;

In court, any court, I intend to vigorously press the argument that Federal Agent Denley’s letter of July 7th 2004 (File ref# 3286232) is documentary evidence of the AFP’s refusal to investigate these crimes against humanity.

WAIVERGATE:- The unlawful withholding of information or evidence to recover overpayments that should be waived under s1,237A of the Social Security Act.

  1. An AFP investigation into the frequency with which phone call recordings are withheld and/or destroyed when Centrelink, via the Secretary of the DSS, attempts to recover alleged overpayments due to welfare recipient error needs to be implemented ASAP.
  2. If statements by Scott Morrison and Hank Jongen, the DHS media unit manager are accurate, the deliberate withholding of audio-recordings or relevant documentation may be enabling the recovery of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars each year that lawfully should be waived under s1,237 (A) of the Social Security Act.
  3. Any fatalities that may have been triggered by fraudulent torts activity, e.g. ‘Sarah’, the aged pensioner mentioned in the Emcott Report, are homicides. The AFP should have a discussion with the Queensland Coroner, Michael Barnes.
  4. Coroner Barnes appears to be very tardy in inquiring into the circumstances that surround ‘Sarah’s death; there is a lack of initiative and enthusiasm that was shown with the tragic death of Matthew Fuller
  5. This apparent nonfeasant failure to act in a timely manner also eerily parallels Federal Agent Pearce’s 14th September 2009 email which is concatenated below. At that time, the AFP turned a blind-eye to possible rorting of $4.64 Million by federal politicians and exactly one month later, Matthew Fuller was dead!
  6. I know it is speculative at this point in time, but one has to wonder; would Department of Environment officials have been so secretive about Matthew Fuller’s death if the Howard Government’s enforcement of breaching quotas, the infamous Performance Indicator Targets, were being investigated by the AFP at that time?
  7. Commissioner Hanger’s comments in 14.1.1 of his report are as valid for the AFP’s 2004 and 2009 decisions re Quotagate and Perksgate as they were for the 4 Roofgate fatalities.

Despite statements by Agent Pearce about the issue having been discussed in Parliament, just 2 years later, in 2011 another 64 politicians had been found to have made claims to which they were not entitled to receive and which again resulted in repayments by these MPs.

Welfare recipients who use the “I made a mistake” excuse when accused of rorting are told ‘Ignorance of the law is not excuse’ and are prosecuted. However, members of the Federal Parliament are not, apparently because of the “gravity/sensitivity” of these prosecutions, and the Minchin Protocol, i.e. the “government protocols referred to by Federal Agent Pearce in the 14 September 2009 email which is concatenated below.

Agent Pearce’s excuses are legal garbage!

The question as to whether or not the “government protocols” constitutes a criminal conspiracy to obstruct and pervert the course of justice for the purpose of protecting federal MPs from criminal prosecutions is a matter of law for a court, or indeed many courts, to consider. One case law precedent that the courts could consider is set out below:

Minister for Immigration & Cultural Affairs v Bhardwaj

HCA 11 209 CLR 597, [2002]

“In our view, logic and legal principle both direct the conclusion that the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada is correct. As already pointed out, a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all. “

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

The AFP cannot pick and choose on the basis of “gravity/sensitivity” or “government protocols”. If politicians rort the system by ignoring their due diligence obligations, then AFP decisions not to investigate are decisions which the AFP has no right, i.e. “no jurisdiction”, to make. The logical flow-on, based upon Bhardwaj, is that there is “no decision” because the AFP has not yet performed its statutory duty to uphold the law.

The Bhardwaj decision also has implications for buck-passing an investigation to the Department of Finance. Whilst this department can conduct audits, it lacks statutory authority to conduct criminal investigations and therefore has “no jurisdiction” to make decisions that involve possible violations of s4 and s135 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995).

Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 (30 June 1938)

Justice Latham stated:

“Accordingly, in order to determine the principles regulating the standard of proof in the divorce court, it is necessary to go to the provisions of the statute, which in this case is the Marriage Act 1928.”

“The phrase ‘it shall be the duty of the court to satisfy itself, so far as it reasonably can’ is also used in sec. 81 with reference to a petitioner being accessory to or conniving at or condoning adultery.’

Whilst Justice Latham’s comments refer to a contested case of adultery in 1938, the fundamental principles of law being expounded were quite clear:

  • “…it is necessary to go to the provisions of the statute”. When determining the legality of a person’s conduct if they have failed to comply with due diligence obligations, it is necessary to evaluate that person’s actions against statute laws, i.e. s4 and s135 when politicians claim entitlements that they are not entitled to receive.
  • “it shall be the duty of the court to satisfy itself, so far as it reasonably can” quite clearly places the determination of guilt upon the court. It is not the “jurisdiction” of Department of Finance bureaucrats to make any determination as to guilt or innocence for to do so is usurp the authority of the courts, violate the constitution, and undermine Rule of Law principles.

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Keating [2013] HCA 20 (8 May 2013)

One of the ironic points in the Keating decision was the attempt by federal politicians to hold accountable 15,000 welfare recipients for a non-existent crime. The key issue in that case was the question, “is there in existence a statute law that was violated?” The answer was a resounding no! The court therefore decided that the retrospective legislation was “statutory fiction”, because people cannot break a non-existent law. There needs to be factual certainty at the time a physical act occurs as to whether or not it is legal or not.

When it comes to the question of possible rorting by politicians, there are laws in place that can be used to provide factual certainty as to the legality or illegality of the actions who may wrongfully claim “entitlements” that they were not legally entitled to receive.

One former politician who may have violated s4 and/or s135 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) is the former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who had reportedly been very kind to her mum by sending her home in a taxi paid for by taxpayers. Apparently, Ms Gillard signed off on not once or twice but a total of ten times using Cabcharge vouchers totalling $438 when sending her mother home in a taxi. Repayment for this abuse of the Cabcharge vouchers in no way invalidates the basic fact that legally she had no right to do so and was probably in violation of s135 by doing so.

For Peter Slipper to be subsequently prosecuted under s135 (1) (5) for Cabcharge violations whilst Julia Gillard was not is both perplexing and disturbing for it represents extreme bias. Peter Slipper’s alleged offences are set out below and they make for interesting study, given the close parallel with Julia Gillard’s actions.

CC 13/40001

The total cost of that travel was $337.00, which Peter Slipper allegedly paid for by completing four Cabcharge vouchers:

(a)    voucher 3467710 – “Parliament House to Suburbs”, $87.00;

(b)    voucher 3467711 – “Suburbs to Parliament House”, $80.00;

(c)     voucher 3467712 – “Suburbs to Suburbs”, $75.00;

(d)    voucher 3467713 – “Suburbs to Suburbs”, $95.00.

CC13/40002 involved 5 Cabcharge claims amounting to $495

CC13/40003 involved 5 Cabcharge claims amounting to $362

This represents 10 Cabcharge claims amounting to $1,194.

An explanation in writing, with specific reference to appropriate rules, regulations, et cetera is requested for an explanation as to why Peter Slipper was charged with 10 alleged abuses of Cabcharge but the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, was not also charged 10 alleged abuses of Cabcharge? Was it because Ms Gillard claimed less than $1,000, or was it because she was the Prime Minister and those responsible for the investigation chose to put “gravity/sensitivity” ahead of s135 (1) (5) and the constitutional provision that the laws of the Commonwealth are “binding” on everyone?

The actions of the AFP and Department of Finance and/or ANAO officials involved in these two incidents raises serious questions as to the integrity of Australia’s criminal justice system.

Thanks to a $10 million advertising campaign by the Howard Government in FY 2005-06, the AFP has a well-advertised track record of assisting Centrelink to prosecute as many as 14 people per day for violations of s135 of the Act. What is less well known are the more than 200 times since 2004 that the AFP has chosen to ignore possible violations of the same legislation by members of the Federal Parliament.

Over the years, the entitlements fund has varied from $170 million to $370 million a year which means that in a 3-year Team of Office for an MP, 226 elected members will have had access to between $500 million to $1 Billion. Since every cent spent has to accounted for, the paperwork is tedious and onerous, but thanks to the excellent, easy-to-understand entitlements handbooks, the 24/7/365 website which can be accessed literally from anywhere in the world, the expertise of the Department of Finance entitlements managers support team, plus the expertise of the various Ministers and their staff who can also be consulted BEFORE certifying a claim, the process may be tediously mundane but it is straightforward. It is a process made less tedious because MPs and senators have their own support staff and advisors to do the leg-work of compliance checking before claims are signed and certified by claimants.

Given the mundane, routine nature of the verification process, the lack of complexity, the in-depth multi-layered support structures, and the degree of expertise that comes with each additional term in office, when experienced politicians say “I made a mistake”, they are essentially admitting that they made a deliberate decision to by-pass the entire Due Diligence process of accountability.

Is that not an admission of “a physical act of omission”?

It is reasonable to adduce that the most logical reason why experienced politicians would not comply with due diligence obligations is that they wanted to make a claim that they knew did not comply with the rules. To all intents and purposes, when experienced politicians make the statement “I made a mistake”, is it really ‘poli-speak’ for “I made a mistake because I chose to do so”?

Paragraph 5 of the constitution, “the laws of the Commonwealth are binding on the courts, judges, and the people” is quite clear in that the law applies to every-one, and in the cases of Bronwyn Bishop, Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard and another 200 or more possible ‘violators’ over the last 20 years, the law as written in the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), is very specific. 135.1(5) of the Criminal Code 1995, specifies that:

(5)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person dishonestly causes a loss, or dishonestly causes a risk of loss, to another person; and

(b) the first-mentioned person knows or believes that the loss will occur or that there is a substantial risk of the loss occurring; and

(c) the other person is a Commonwealth entity.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

To say that Bronwyn Bishop’s $5,227 helicopter travel claim, i.e. ‘Chopper-gate’, was “a bridge too far” is something of a misnomer.

At 2,586.6 metres in length, the Westgate Bridge may be the third longest bridge in Australia. However, the journey from Melbourne to Geelong is, at 80 kilometres, a distance that is far longer than any bridge in Australia! The conditions under which she could claim re-imbursement for chartering a helicopter did not apply to her situation, a fact that a quick email, phone call to Lauren Barons, or the use of her phone to check the on-line entitlements management website would have confirmed BEFORE the helicopter charter was undertaken. Ditto for when Ms Bishop actually certified that the flight was within the rules.

There are simply too many glaringly apparently wilful ‘acts of omission’ for the spurious excuse “I made a mistake’ to be legally valid. Consequently, Ms Bishop’s claim of $5,227 for a chopper ride to Geelong was literally, ‘a chopper ride too far” as far as s4 and s135 of the Act are concerned and, if similar charges of violating s4 or s135 against other people, i.e. welfare recipients, are to be consistent with the Commonwealth’s international, and national, Equality before the law” obligations Ms Bishop, Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard and all other members of the Federal Parliament must be treated in precisely the same way. To fail to so would be a serious violation of the Commonwealth’s procedural fairness obligations to all other citizens of the realm.

I believe that the appropriateness of the conduct of Ms Bishop in making a claim for taxpayers to foot the bill for this chopper charter is a matter for the courts as are the claims made by Tony Abbott in regard to the 2 travel claims incidents mentioned previously in this communication

BREACH-GATE & QUOTA-GATE.

Crimes against Humanity and s2.11 and s2.122 of Report #12 to the 44th Parliament in September 2014.

Statement s2.11 and s2.12 of Report #12 raise another issue that the AFP must consider in relation to Federal Agent Denley’s letter, i.e. the questions of just how many people did not survive being deliberately deprived of a subsistence allowance for either 13 weeks or 8weeks, and Kevin Andrews knowledge of those deaths when legislation was put before the parliament to deprive young people of a subsistence allowance for 6 months.

Consider very carefully the following statements by a 19th century English Royal Commission which was tasked with reviewing Crown Laws including those that defined Murder:

“…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.”

English Parliament -Royal Commissioners’ 7th Report [1843]

19 Parliamentary Papers, p.24

      The key phrase in the Royal Commission’s statement is:

“…implied malice, consist simply in the disregard of life manifested by exposing life to peril”

Actions speak louder than words, and that failed legislation which was intended to deprive people of their right to subsistence support for 6 months is itself further evidence of “implied malice”, i.e. the willingness by some members of the Federal Parliament to engage in systemic human rights violations for the spuriously shallow and heartless purpose of reducing the cost of the Federal Government’s welfare budget.

  • Joe Hockey’s numerous “The age of entitlements is over” statements focus upon reducing welfare costs, not the costly federal politicians “entitlements” which are also paid for by taxpayers.
  • These statements are empirical evidence of a mindset that places a higher priority on saving money than on saving the lives of the poor.
  • Tony Abbott’s “abuse of taxpayers money” comment when the Human Rights Committee’s Report #12 rejected his ‘No-dole-for-6-months’ legislation is further evidence of a dangerously callous mindset in which saving money is apparently deemed to be far more important than saving the lives of Aussie Battlers down on their luck.

Commissioner Colvin, you follow in the footsteps of Mick Keelty and Tony Negus and ignore my request to hold politicians as accountable for their actions as welfare recipients, i.e. you can opt to ignore this communication, However, the situation is that unless “Chopper-gate” and Tony Abbott’s “Book-gate” and “Party-gate” claims and Julia Gillard’s “Taxi-gate” claims are all reviewed in the same manner that alleged rorted by welfare recipients are, i.e. subjected to the degree of scrutiny that due diligence obligations and s135 statutes require, within a year or so, it is possible that another 35,000 convictions of welfare recipients could go the same way as the 15,000 convictions went on May 8th 2013 when the High Court handed down its “statutory fiction” decision, i.e. down the sewer.

Australia cannot have a federal parliament and a federal police force that places 13th century pre-Magna Carta elitism ahead of 21st century constitutional Rule of Law. There is a possibility that future prosecutions could go down the same sewer hole that 15,000 prosecutions of welfare recipients did in 2013. This is due to case law Manifest Ostensible Bias precedents such as the previously mentioned Leck v Morris & Ors; Keating v Morris & Ors decision by Justice Moynihan on 1st September 2005 highlight the legal risks posed by the AFP’s biased “gravity/sensitivity” decisions which have the practical effect of removing accountability for actions from the Due Diligence entitlements certification process.

The real-world consequence of the AFP’s “gravity/sensitivity” approach to dealing with federal politicians who make outrageous entitlements clams appears to have been the awarding of a ‘007 Licence to Rort”. By ignoring the impact of “Quotagate”, that may have been extended to a ‘007 Licence to Kill.

A very real scenario that you need to consider in the light of the anti-bikie legislation passed in the SA Parliament recently is the potential for lawyers representing the alleged organised crime bikie clubs to counter-accuse both the Federal Parliament and the “Alphabet Warriors”, e.g. the AFP, of being organized crime groups.

The use of the phrase “gravity/sensitivity” in Federal Agent Denley’s letter in July 2004 and also in Federal Agent Pearce’s email of 14th September 2009 raises the possibility of boilerplate text responses to complaints from the public concerning possible rorting by federal politicians an indication that it is standard operating procedure to refuse to investigate politicians who may have violated statute provisions of s135. That in turn raises the flow-on issue of the possibility of a “dirty deal” in regard to the death toll caused by the Howard Government’s illegal enforcement of Performance Indicator Targets., i.e. no investigation of these fatalities in exchange for the draconian laws that were included in the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 legislation.

Such a ‘dirty deal’ would mean that that the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 legislation is the proceeds of a crime, i.e. the proceeds of a conspiracy to obstruct and pervert the course of justice. I know that in 2006 the High Court ruled the legislation valid. However, the court was quite possibly in a “Facts not in evidence at the time” situation and the possibility of a dirty deal between the Howard Government and the AFP opens the door to having the legislation be ruled invalid, i.e. “statutory fiction” because it is the proceeds of a conspiracy to obstruct and pervert justice. I leave you to postulate on the flow-on consequences of the High Court making such a determination!

It is exceedingly rare for me to agree with Tony Abbott’s views; however on one point I am in total agreement, “A crime is a crime, is a crime”.

When it comes to Scott Morrison’s media sound bite on the 25th May, I strongly recommend that if you are going to fish where the fish are, forget the minnows in the welfare payments swamp. Instead try what may well be a novel experience for the AFP and go after the biggest fish of all, those ‘sharks’ that feast in the seemingly endless nirvana of the taxpayer funded Parliamentary Entitlements ‘pool’.

If Prime Minister Abbott and/or Bronwyn Bishop have committed crimes, it is not a matter for the Department of Finance which has no jurisdiction to make criminal determinations in cases that may involve violations of s135. It is for the AFP to investigate criminal activity, the CDPP to prosecute, and the courts to determine the facts of the matter and then make the appropriate decision.

The same logic applies to any fatalities caused by welfare penalties legislation or fraudulent Centrelink torts; in every state and territory in the nation. Those responsible for causing fatalities through abuses of power, or outright fraud, must be held accountable before the courts in accordance with due process of the law, human rights obligations, and the constitution.

Slipper v Turner. [2015] ACTSC 27 (26 February2015)

The lessons to learnt from Slipper v Turner are the errors of law that so interest me in the appeal that I am preparing on behalf of my client. The AFP and the CDPP both need to learn from this decision how not to make errors of law that may allow rorting politicians to continue to avoid accountability for their actions.

MYTHS

John F Kennedy once made a most perceptive statement:

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Belief in myth allows the comfort of opinions without the discomfort of thought.”

  • The false belief that people on welfare want to be on welfare is a myth, as is the dangerous belief that if you deprive impoverished people of a welfare support, that this somehow guarantee that they will immediately be successive in gaining employment .
  • The belief that honest employers want to employ.
  • The reality is that the business of business is making a profit, and if the government will supply a steady stream of free labour, there is no shortage of employers who will utilize that source of free labour rather than employ someone.
  • Another myth is the belief that all welfare recipients are ignorant, compliant, and easily manipulated. The reality is that Baby Boomers, the generation that cut its teeth opposing abuses of authoritarian power, are well educated, feisty as ever, and perhaps most significantly of all, for the last 3 years, have been slowly swelling the ranks of those who must subsist, in part at least, on a welfare allowance.

“The medium is the message” said Marshall McLuhan half a century ago. Both this email and the Emcott Report are in themselves a message that has been around since biblical times, i.e. the anything but new Baby Boomer philosophy of “Don’t tread on me.”

CODA

2-2-15

As a result of a media report last night, I have been looking into having Ms Bishop chartering a jet in November 2014 to fly from Sydney to Nowra.

It appears that “Chopper-gate” may be a subset of “Charter-gate”, i.e. Ms Bishop chartering aircraft and sticking taxpayers with the costs of the charter without first exercising due diligence to see if she was legally entitled to defray the costs to taxpayers.

“I made a mistake” essentially refers to her decision to abrogate her obligate to check eligibility for entitlements BEFORE seeking to stick taxpayers, e.g. me, with the bill.

Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 (30 June 1938)

Justice Latham stated: “Accordingly, in order to determine the principles regulating the standard of proof in the divorce court, it is necessary to go to the provisions of the statute, which in this case is the Marriage Act 1928.”

In plain English, Justice Latham said that the principles for determining what standards are used to see if a law has been broken is to actually look at what the law says. It sounds pedantically logical but the failure to do this post 21st March 2000 saw 15,000 welfare recipients prosecuted for a non-existent crime! In the case of entitlements claims, the basic question then is what does “the law”, i.e. what the entitlements authorized by relevant awards et cetera as specified in the entitlements handbooks, website, et cetera and the requirements upon politicians to undertake BEFORE they lodge an entitlements claim?

  1. As far as members of parliament, who may have university qualifications and years of experience in making entitlements claims, the determination of wrong-doing is to look at what they were required to do and then scrutinize what they did, or did not do, in meeting those obligations.
  2. This is the basic logic used both prosecuting welfare recipients for fraud or when attempting to recover alleged overpayments.
  3. You really do need to look at SSAT and AAT determinations. There are literally tens of thousands of these decisions that have been made in favour of the Commonwealth, usually to the Secretary of the DSS, based upon THE SIMPLE FACT THAT WELFARE RECIPIENTS DID NOT READ THE FORM LETTER SENT TO THEM BY CENTRELINK.
  4. Quite literally, hundreds of millions of dollars in over-payments have been recovered because of that simple point alone; a point which is now the core foundation principle in overpayment recovery tort actions.

Justice Latham also said: “The phrase “it shall be the duty of the court to satisfy itself, so far as it reasonably can” is also used in sec. 81 with reference to a petitioner being accessory to or conniving at or condoning adultery.”

Take note of: “The phrase “it shall be the duty of the court to satisfy itself, so far as it reasonably can.

  1. How can any court do this if the Federal Police routinely put “gravity/sensitivity” ahead of the constitution and s135of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act?
  2. How can a court determine if members of parliament are “conniving” with public servants in the Department of Finance, or with the Federal Police, for the purpose of ensuring that rorting politicians are not held accountable for violations of s135 of the Act?

I reiterate, Minister for Immigration & Cultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] 209 CLR 597,

“…if there is no jurisdiction for a determination”, then there is “no decision at all”

Under statute law, The Department of Finance can conduct financial audits but, consistent with Bhardwaj, has “no jurisdiction” to conduct a criminal investigation, especial one that involves both questioning senior members of the federal parliament and their staff, and also conducting forensic examinations of their computers, mobile phones, iPads, et cetera.

Whilst off-loading the investigation of possible rorting by MPs to the Department of Finance may sound reasonable to people who are unfamiliar with the correct way to conduct a criminal investigation, it is a process that will almost certainly not hold up in court. And to court is precisely where “Charter-gate” and other possible rorts by members of the federal parliament need to be going.

“Politicians are not (the) judge and jury on these matters.”

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/am-with-peter-cave/4004806   ABC Archives: MP3 file: bst_20120511-0710.mp3

In a recorded interview that was broadcast on ABC Radio 891 (Adelaide) at approximately 8.15 a.m. on Friday 11th May 2012, a senior government minister, Senator Penny Wong, made the statements below in response to calls by the Liberal-National Coalition for Prime Minister Gillard to sack Craig Thompson for alleged fraudulent misconduct when he was a union leader. Download and listen to this statement which is at the 8-minute point in the ABC’s recording of the AM program.

“… there are allegations made against members of parliament, made against individuals in our community … and the appropriate way to deal with those is to allow the courts to deal with them. Now, I’ve spoken about this for time, including on the ABC. When I’m asked about a number of things which are in the public arena, for example in the Fair Work Australia Report, I’ve said, if those allegations are correct, they are manifestly inappropriate. Manifestly! But politicians are not judge and jury when it comes to these matters, and there’s a very good reason for that. Because we have a system that is about the separation of powers and is about proper process when it comes to these and Anthony (Albanese) was making that point.”

(Presenter: “Are the gloves now off?”)

“Well, we have said, very clearly, we believe that the Parliament should respect the processes of our courts; the processes which exist for very sound reasons. Regrettably, that’s not the way the Opposition, on this issue, are approaching it.”

These statements by Senator Wong , e.g. “… there are allegations made against members of parliament, made against individuals in our community … and the appropriate way to deal with those is to allow the courts to deal with them” completely repudiates Federal Agent Pearce’s outrageous statement that no AFP investigation was needed because the rorting of $4.64 million had been :

“…the subject of political debate and inquiry”

As Senator Wong also stated, allegations against members of the federal parliament are, under Australia’s constitution, “a matter for the courts.” As has been pointed out in the example court cases, the issue for the AFP to consider is not who heard about the rorting, or where they heard about, or even who in parliament debated this rorting.

The issue was, and still is, had a statute law been broken?

On the basis of Auditor-General’s Report #3, in 2007 “a significant number”, possibly all 144 of the politicians audited, were found to have doubled dipped $4.64 million by using there massive printing ‘entitlement’ to print election material.

In addition to double dipping to the tune of $4.64 million, this gave elected members of parliament a massive taxpayer funded advantage over other candidates who were seeking election to the parliament for the first time.

According to paragraph 5 of the constitution, “the laws of the Commonwealth are BINDING on the courts, judges, and the people. “

What Senator Wong said in 2012, “a matter for the courts.”, is a very clear paraphrase of what Justice Latham said in 1938, i.e. “…the duty of the court to satisfy itself, so far as it reasonably can”. The remarks of both Senator Wong and Justice Latham are totally consistent with the constitution whilst Agent Pearce’s statement “…the subject of political debate and inquiry” is totally inconsistent with the constitution, statute law and case law determinations.

MS Bishop’s apology, her statement that she would repay the money, and her resignation as Speaker announcement today, in no-way diminish Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s May 27th 2015 statement that “A crime is a crime, is a crime.”

It is for a court to determine if Ms Bishop broke the law, i.e. provisions within s135 of the Act, by ignoring her due diligence obligations and certifying claims for benefits that, based upon readily available information, she was not entitled to receive.

If found guilty of violating s135 (1) (5), or other provisions in the Act, then it is for a court to take into consideration her subsequent acts of contrition. In the meantime, all politicians who have set aside their due diligence obligations and certified claims for entitlements that they are not entitled to receive, should be treated in the same way as welfare recipients are treated.

S138 (3)(f) of the Evidence Act states: “whether the impropriety or contravention was contrary to or inconsistent with a right of a person recognised by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

Note:       The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is set out in Schedule 2 to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986.

Flowing on from the above, Article 14 of the ICCPR states:

All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

“Equality before the Law” includes the principle of “Accountability before the law in accordance with due process.”

If you continue to uphold “government policies” instead of the constitution and statutes laws such as the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act when dealing with possible rorting by politicians, any competent lawyer should be able to use case law decisions involving bias to mount a “No case to answer” rebuttal to charges brought by the CDPP that are based upon APF investigations. These lawyers just need empirical “stand-up-in-court” evidence of systemic bias that disadvantages their client(s) and that is one of the primary functions of this pedantic nutcase email, i.e. by distributing this communications to lawyers, they will have that evidence. Whether they use or not is their decision, but if they don’t use this evidence and loose the case, dis-satisfied clients will most definitely not be impressed.

Under s251 of South Australia’s Criminal Law Consolidation Act, the communications from agents Denley and Pearce may well constitute a serious crime, i.e. Abuse of Public Office.

251—Abuse of public office

(1)    A public officer who improperly—

(a)    exercises power or influence that the public officer has by virtue of his or her public office; or

(b)    refuses or fails to discharge or perform an official duty or function; or

(c)    uses information that the public officer has gained by virtue of his or her public office,

with the intention of—

(d)    securing a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or

(e)    causing injury or detriment to another person,

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty:

(a)    for a basic offence—imprisonment for 7 years;

(b)    for an aggravated offence—imprisonment for 10 years.

A former SA police prosecutor once told me that anyone who breaks the law can usually be charged on at least 3 counts. S257 of the above mentioned Act could provide the 2nd count, i.e.

256—Attempt to obstruct or pervert course of justice or due administration of law

(1)    A person who attempts to obstruct or pervert the course of justice or the due administration of the law in a manner not otherwise dealt with in the preceding provisions of this Part is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 4 years.

(2)    Where—

(a)    a person charged with an offence against any of the preceding provisions of this Part is found not guilty of the offence charged; but

(b)    the court is satisfied that the accused is guilty of an offence against subsection (1),

the court may, if the maximum penalty prescribed for an offence against subsection (1) is the same as or less than the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence charged, find the accused guilty of an offence against subsection (1).

Ever since I first received Agent Denley’s letter in 2004, it has been my considered view that the AFP decision was a Broad Ultra Vires decision, i.e. a decision that undermined the Rule of law by shamelessly exhibiting favouritism to politicians whilst at the same time assisting Centrelink to investigate and prosecute “10 people per day.”

With Scott Morrison’s “fish where the fish are” media conference on May 25th, I cannot help but ask myself “what’s changed”. Politicians still brazen rort entitlements whilst the AFP assists politicians to investigate welfare recipients who may have committed the very same crime, i.e. “by acts of omission and/or commission, obtained an ‘advantage’ or benefit that was not entitled to be received”.

Federal Agent Pearce’s email, which contained similar text, only served to reinforce this viewpoint which I expressed in complaints 2012/109928 and 2012/109928R to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office.

As your are probably fully aware, he Bhardwaj decision concerned a case in which the applicant was denied the right to be heard, an absolute right as far as the court was concerned, which resulted in the “no jurisdiction, no decision” determination. The Bhardwaj decision is therefore a legally relevant precedent in relation to these OCO appeals because they were made without being given the opportunity to speak/argue the legal merits of issues raised in written correspondence

The Bhardwaj precedent also applies to the AFP’s 2004 decision; check the AFP email records which contains emails from my former email address, ronaldm@adam.com.au, and you will find that I made a specific request for the AFP to talk to me before making any decision. Under the binding Bhardwaj precedent of ‘no speak-no jurisdiction-no decision’, the AFP’s July 7th 2004 decision was invalid, a moot point at this stage except for the fact that the failure to do so may have resulted in a significant rise in the number of breaching triggered fatalities, possibly from about 3,500 – 5,000 at that time to around 7,500+ in August 2007 when the Howard Government was finally ousted by voters.

If I am correct and breaching is An Act of State Persecution, then Federal Agent Denley’s letter was one of the critical links in the deaths of many more welfare recipients, i.e. just like the South African Police in the bad old Apartheid days, the AFP is actively involved in supporting crimes against humanity.

Since there is no statute of limitations on homicides, my view is that Agent Denley’s letter is still relevant evidence of great significant even today. One thing is certain, in the AAT trial when I pointed the scale of the secretly classified “irrelevant” death toll caused by breaching was unknown because the AFP refused to investigate, neither the Crown Law lawyer representing Finn Pratt (Secretary of the DDS), nor the presiding AAT disputed that statement because Agent Denley’s letter and Agent Pearce’s email both met the requirements of s142 of the Evidence Act (1995):

s142 Admissibility of evidence: standard of proof

(1)  Except as otherwise provided by this Act, in any proceeding the court is to find that the facts necessary for deciding:

(a)  a question whether evidence should be admitted or not admitted, whether in the exercise of a discretion or not; or

(b)  any other question arising under this Act;

have been proved if it is satisfied that they have been proved on the balance of probabilities.

(2)  In determining whether it is so satisfied, the matters that the court must take into account include:

(a)  the importance of the evidence in the proceeding; and

(b)  the gravity of the matters alleged in relation to the question.

With new information (evidence?) streaming out of CALC hearings, plus the plethora of relevant revelations contained in Auditor-General’s Report #37, the Ombudsman is likely to recommend that the adverse AAT decision that I am fighting on behalf of a welfare recipient is likely to be set aside. However, I thought that before the AAT trial and was proved wrong. If the Ombudsman does not recommend that the AAT decision be set aside, then everything, including this daisy-chain of emails and the appended files will be headed to a court, possibly the Federal Court in the case that I am involved in but any court in the country could wind up with Denley’s letter or Pearce’s email ‘on-the-table’ in an arraignment hearing.

In paragraph 82 of his speech to the 2013 AGL Law Administrators conference, Justice Rares made the following statement:

“Courts must determine the legal validity of any legislative or executive conduct in light of any relevant provision in a Bill of Rights. Our legal system currently allows every court in this country, from a local court magistrate to the High Court, when exercising federal jurisdiction, to declare a law made by any parliament or under delegated legislation or any executive conduct to be constitutionally invalid.”

Any prosecution, at any level in Australia’s court system could bring breaching legislation to a grinding halt and trigger a UN Human Rights Commission investigation of the holocaust impact of breaching legislation.

Did you discuss that potential outcome with Scott Morrison when considering the setting up of the latest AFP ‘fishing expedition’ to catch welfare rorters?

The plain and simple reality is that, with the official approval of the Office of the Governor-General, over a time-frame measured in decades, the Australian Federal Parliament has violated the constitutional rights, common law rights, statute law rights, and fundamental human rights of millions of welfare recipients. The upside to these violations of rights has been “savings measured in billions of dollars. The downside has been a humanitarian disaster with the possibility of a secretly classified breaching triggered death toll that may be in the range of 15,000 to 60,000 victims

QUESTION: What empirical evidence from DHS, DSS, Centrelink or DWEER reports, or from the Hansard Minute of senate oversight committee hearing is available in the public domain to refute or confirm that claim?

If you have evidence to refute that claim, please be so kind as to make it available.

Last month, in a TV news report, a senior Anglicare official in South Australia reported that this welfare agency was being contacted by 20 families a day facing homelessness. He also claimed that over 1,000 children ‘were sleeping rough’ with many, like the young couple who died in Ballarat on July 25th 2014, living (if it can be called that) in cars

However, the unknown factor is the scale of the death toll caused by various forms of breaching penalties, including the Howard Government’s illegal Performance Indicator Targets.

As stated previously, STATISTICS, I repeat, STATISTICS indicate that the death toll from breaching triggered suicides may be 15,000 or more. To this can be added the deaths from ‘misadventure’ and ‘natural causes’ which is why the cumulative death toll may be far higher than the number indicated by official suicide statistics. You need a task force that talks to mental health experts at the Australian Institute of Health & Welfare and also to every chief coroner in each state and territory in the nation.

I do not care how many times I have to re-emphasize the fact that John Howard’s Performance Indicator Targets, i.e. the breaching quotas reported by Centrelink staff to the Independent Pearce inquiry, were “An abuse of power” and consequently, all of the unreported, secretly classified, “irrelevant” deaths triggered by this illegal activity are homicides under crimes act laws in every state and territory in Australia.

  1. One implication of this is that even if Tony Abbott has been rorting the entitlements fund, it would be a relatively minor issue compared to the level of accountability for the death toll caused by the breaching quotas.
  2. Since the death toll is an official state secret, precise numbers are currently unknown but a ballpark estimate, based upon suicide statistics, of 2,000 – 3,500 fatalities may ultimately prove to be a fairly realistic number.
  3. Whatever the precise number ultimately proves to be, it is vital to keep sight of the fact that the statistical numbers represents real people who are now DEAD PEOPLE!

Unless you take steps to find persuade Gary Sterrenberg, the Chief Information Office of the Department of Human Services, to finally “collect” and report breaching fatalities in the quarterly ‘public accountability’ reports, I guess we shall have to wait until a court orders that the data be collected and published before we find out precisely how many people have died for the apparently more important goal of achieving or maintaining a federal budget surplus.

I would point out that ever since the very first breaching triggered fatality, the omission of these fatalities from DHS, DSS, DWEER and Centrelink public accountability and annual reports means that these reports are empirical evidence of a criminal conspiracy to conceal these fatalities. Since Tony Abbott is a former employment Minister who may have concealed a four figure death toll amongst breached welfare recipients, his actions in regard to the 4 ‘Roofgate’ fatalities is most perplexing.

In his pursuit of the Prime Minister’s job, he appears to have been willing to play Russian Roulette with the future of the Liberal Party. Kevin Rudd could hardly have criticized Tony Abbott for the Quotagate fatalities without disclosing that he knew about these deaths and so Tony Abbott was ‘safe’ in that regard. However, he left himself wide open to the sort of submission that I made to the ECA Committee’s inquiry under the Term of Reference #3, “Any other matters”.

That T.o.R. was intended to rake up more muck that could be used against Kevin Rudd and his government but it backfired because it opened the door to “Any other fatalities caused by any other corruption in any other government program under the auspices of any other minister in any other government.”

It was an invitation that I could not refuse.

It was a submission that, not surprisingly, the Opposition dominated ECA committee refused to accept. It was, and still is, my considered opinion that the ECA committee abused its power for the express purpose of continuing to maintain the wall of secrecy that surrounds the breaching triggered death toll.

In the Emcott Report I make mention of the trial and conviction of Josiah Finch in 2006. It is a Matter of Fact that he did not kill anyone but he was convicted of felony murder and given a mandatory sentence of 25 years with a 14 year non-parole period (15 years less time held on remand) simply because he was allegedly involved in a drug deal with Karim Morrison when he was, without warning, shot dead. Correct me if I am wrong, but the actions of politicians, bureaucrats, police officers, and indeed anyone else who knows about breaching fatalities and conceals them, is guilty of the same crime?

Justice Rares speech to the AGS Law Administrators Conference on 20th June 2013 contains the following statements:

Paragraph 19: “In 1905 Griffith CJ[1] discerned that decision as authority for the proposition that “an act which is an interference with liberty or property is unlawful unless a positive law can be found to authorize it”[2]. Soon after, in his seminal judgment in the early immigration case of Potter v Minahan[3], O’Connor J affirmed that there is a presumption that a statute that affects civil rights will not be construed to overthrow fundamental principles, infringe rights or depart from the general system of law without expressing its intention with irresistible clearness.”

Breaching penalties violate the right to subsist, i.e. they compromise right to life under the guise of punishing ‘dole bludgers’, and as such the legislation is not legally valid.

Paragraph 20: “More recently the High Court applied Entick[4] in Coco v The Queen[5]. It held to be inadmissible, evidence obtained by a listening device that had been placed on private property under a warrant issued pursuant to a State Act which did not itself authorise entry onto private property. Mason CJ, Brennan, Gaudron and McHugh JJ emphasised that[6]:”

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

Centrelink arbitrarily recording of phone calls without explicit permission using the false claim that it is for the caller’s protection is of highly questionable legallity. To then withhold any recordings if they compromise Centrelink/DSS tort claims is beyond reprehensible,; it is a criminal act and any fatalities that are triggered by these crimes, i.e. where people placed under duress by these fraudulent torts die for any reason such as a stroke, heart attack or suicide, are homicides.

The lesson to learn from the 5-minute telephone call that triggered Jacintha Saldanha’s death underscores the point that it does not take much to push emotionally fragile people ‘over-the-edge’. If an unlawfully recorded phone call can trigger a suicide, what is the foreseeably probable impact of depriving emotionally vulnerable people f their only means of subsistence for 2 or 3 months? What also is the foreseeable potential impact of torts in which evidence of ‘Commonwealth error’ is deliberately withheld or destroyed?

Even if a tort is legally valid, as s156 (4)(c) of Tasmanian Crimes act makes quite clear, it is still unlawful to engage in acts against people who are ill and who, as a direct consequence of that act, wind up dead:

  1. Culpable homicide

(1) Homicide may be culpable or not culpable.`

(b) by an omission amounting to culpable negligence to perform a duty tending to the preservation of human life, although there may be no intention to cause death or bodily harm; or

(c) by any unlawful act.

(3) The question what amounts to culpable negligence is a question of fact, to be determined on the circumstances of each particular case.

(4) For the purposes of this chapter it is unlawful –

(a) to cause death in the manner described in section 154(c);

(b) to wilfully frighten a child of tender years; or

(c) to wilfully frighten a sick person knowing such person to be sick.

As you can see, torts, whether valid or fraudulent, that “…wilfully frighten a sick person knowing such person to be sick” which result in a fatality are, under this Tasmanian law, a homicide.

Note also 156 (2)(b): “by an omission amounting to culpable negligence to perform a duty tending to the preservation of human life, although there may be no intention to cause death or bodily harm;”

I believe that a valid definition of the Howard Government’s Performance Indicator Targets Program is as follows:

“In FY 2000-01 Breaching was unconstitutional abuse of power that violated fundamental legal and 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 wilfully intended to prevent vulnerable, at-risk people from meeting even their most basic costs of living for a period of 3-months.

Do you care to deny that the Howard Government’s Performance Indicator Targets Program was not a systemic act of culpable negligence as per 156 (2)(c) of the Tasmanian Crimes Act?

A potential scenario that you should include in any evaluation of this email is the possibility of scenario in which lawyers acting in the best interests of South Australian motor cycle clubs, i.e. the alleged organized crime gangs, could seek a court order compelling public disclosure of the classified breaching death toll and the death toll caused by fraudulent torts.

That could have some interesting, totally unintended consequences for both the SA Government and the Federal Parliament.

The legal reality is that any lawyer representing any client charged with reckless endangerment or any form of homicide, e.g. causing death by dangerous driving ,or murder, could use the repeated failure of the AFP to investigate Quotagate as grounds for mounting an Ostensible Bias defence on behalf of their client(s).

  1. Please note that when I requested the information about tortious conduct triggered fatalities from Finn Pratt’s lawyer, the request was rejected.
  2. During the AAT trial, I requested that the presiding AAT Member obtain information about tortious conduct triggered fatalities, i.e. breaching triggered fatalities, but the request was not complied with.
  3. Consequently, valid legal grounds exist to seek a Federal Court order to obtain this information if the Ombudsman does not overturn the AAT’s decision.

At this point in time, if lawyers representing SA’s alleged organized bikie crime gangs use the information provided in the High Court, under SA’s new anti-bikie laws, disclosure of the death toll could see legal entities such as the Federal Parliament, the AFP, the ACC, the CDPP, ASIO, the Attorney-General’s Department, the AAT, and even the ACMA, being classified as criminal organizations for their roles in the holocaust caused by breaching and/or fraudulent torts conducted by Centrelink!

Ultimately, you will make what you believe is a decision that is in the best interests of the nation, or alternately, in your perception of what is in the best interests of the AFP. Others may make totally difference decisions based upon their perceived best interests.

As for me, I have given my word that I will do everything reasonably possible to obtain justice for the person that I am assisting. God willing, in all of these conflicting interests, Justice will prevail for all who have been cruelly denied this most basic of human rights.

Ronald Medlicott.

Australian citizen, registered teacher and a Christian lay welfare rights advocate.

[1]              with whom Barton and O’Connor JJ concurred

[2]              Clough v Leahy (1905) 2 CLR 139 at 150 per Mason CJ, Brennan, Gaudron and McHugh JJ

[3]              (1908) 7 CLR 277 at 304 (citing a passage from Maxwell on Statutes 4th ed at 121)

[4]              2 Wils 275

[5]              (1994) 179 CLR 427 at 435

[6]              179 CLR at 436

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

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

Above is page 1 of the email from federal Agent Pearce; pages 2- 4 are my emailed request to do something about the MP’s who double-dipped to the tune of $4.64. The AFP did nothing, and exactly 1-month later Matthew Fuller died in the fraud ridden “Roofgate” home insulation program.

July 04 denley letter page 1

Above is Federal Agent Louise Denley’s letter in which the AFP refused to investigate a number of issues including “Quotagate”, i.e. the illegal enforcement of Performance Indicator targets (Breaching Quotas) which may have triggered more than 2,000 suiiocdes plus deaths from other causes. Statistics indicate that by the time the Howard Government was ousted from office, a polite way of saying dumped by voters, as many as 7,700 welfare recipients may have died as a direct consequence of being breached by the Howard Government.

The blatant refusals of the Federal Police to investigate federal politicans who may have violated s4 and provisions in s135 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, opens the door to a “Manifest Ostensible bias defence using Leck v Morris $ Ors; Keating v Morris & Ors Queensland Supreme Court, 1st September 2005. Google QSC 243 2005 for a copy of the findings handed down by Justice Moynihan.

As stated in the text, Dr Jayant Patel is free today because much of the evidence in his re-trial was killed off by Justice Moynihan’s decision. It is extreme bias for the federal police to investigate welfare recipient who may have rorted but to use trivial excuses for the purpose of avoiding a criminal investigation into politicians who rort.

Buckpassing 101: The ANAO expected the federal Police to investigate but the Federal Police had no intention of investigating Trish Draper because if she was convicted, then John Howard would have had to be charges as an Acessory after the Fact because he knew about Ms Draper's false travel claim and kept quiet about it!

Buckpassing 101: The ANAO expected the federal Police to investigate but the Federal Police had no intention of investigating Trish Draper because if she was convicted, then John Howard would have had to be charges as an Acessory after the Fact because he knew about Ms Draper’s false travel claim and kept quiet about it!

As the Australian National Audit Office made very clear in this 2004 letter, they have no legal jurisdiction to investigate rorting by politicians. The Department of Finance also has no legal jurisdiction to conduct a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION and yet the investigation of Bronwyn Bishop has been buck-passed to this federal agency which has no power to interview government ministers, including the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. What appears to be happening is a “CLAYTON’S INVESITIGATION” of “Chopper-gate, i.e. the appearance of an investigation, without compliance with the ‘Rules of Investigation’ which are very strict and if ignored, can kill off a prosecution.

Anyone charged with a crime should be talking to their lawyer(s) about the repeated refusals of the federal police to investigate possible corruption in the federal parliament. In fact, anyone accused or convicted of murder should be zeroing in on this entire website which has over 130 posting with approximately 1 million words of commentary. The  2 dozen companion YouTube videos should also be viewed, e.g.

DVD edition – BURN NOTICE:The others

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGVeRSFKsI0

School safety problems

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfRDZnt8-MQ

South Australia’s Costa Concordia Safety Problems

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pDoJRtk9xc

The City of Playford plays Russian Roulette Part 6b

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U0uASXvckc.

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

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

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

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 https://wordpress.com/post/20292103/1383/

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.

SECTION #1 – COMMONWEALTH CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995

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!

THE LEGAL CONTEXT OF HUMAN RIGHTS BREACHING

 ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Download from: http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/romefra.htm

  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.

“TORTURE”

 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. http://www.workplacebullying.org/2012/01/12/livescience/
  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 PROHIBITED UNDER Article 7 (1) (e).

  • 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.

PONDER 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.  http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/attorneygeneral-george-brandis-people-do-have-a-right-to-be-bigots-20140324-35dj3.html

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?

HANSARD: COMMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Hansard

The text below starts at:

  • Page 25 Senate Thursday, 26 February 2015
  • COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

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
  • COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

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:
  5. http://www.info.dfat.gov.au/Info/Treaties/treaties.nsf/AllDocIDs/619D7BC7DF6FF190CA256B4F007731BD

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.

[ MY COMMENT: THIS YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF  WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE ISSUE THAT PARALLELS CENTRELINK RECORDING PHONE CALLS “FOR YOUR SECURITY” AND THEN WITHHOLDING OR DESTROYING THESE RECORDINGS IN TORT SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS.]

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
  • COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

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

involved?

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
  • COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

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
  • COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

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.

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

HANSARD INSIGHT INTO HOW TONY ABBOTT USED Centrelink’s ISIS TO FUND ISIS TERRORISTS.

 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

COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

 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

COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

 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

COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

 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.

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

MY COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE HANSARD REPORT.

 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.

 “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