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
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.
- 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.
- “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.
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  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
 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.
 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
 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:
- 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.
- 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)
- 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:
- 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.
- 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).
- 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:
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.
- 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.
- 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;
- State Liberal Party meetings do not qualify as “official commitments” so what the official reason for the helicopter flight to Geelong?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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  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  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.  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]
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.
- 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).
- 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:
- Decades of federal welfare penalties legislation which is constantly being tinkered with by the Federal Parliament.
- A confidential classification of these fatalities.
- “Don’t copy, don’t distribute’ suppression orders.
- Dismissing them as “irrelevant”.
- Ignoring them in a federal tribunal hearing.
- Authorities and politicians ignoring complaints about these deaths.
“…severe deprivation”, as in:
- Deliberately depriving impoverished people of their only means of subsistence and concealing the consequent death toll.
- Attempting in 2002 to increase the breaching penalty from 13 weeks to 26 weeks.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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!
- 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?
- 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, 
“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  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  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.
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 
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.  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.
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.”
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  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?
- 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.
- This is the basic logic used both prosecuting welfare recipients for fraud or when attempting to recover alleged overpayments.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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  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.
(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.
(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, email@example.com, 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 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”. Soon after, in his seminal judgment in the early immigration case of Potter v Minahan, 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 in Coco v The Queen. 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:”
“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:
- 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).
- Please note that when I requested the information about tortious conduct triggered fatalities from Finn Pratt’s lawyer, the request was rejected.
- 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.
- 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.
Australian citizen, registered teacher and a Christian lay welfare rights advocate.
 with whom Barton and O’Connor JJ concurred
 Clough v Leahy (1905) 2 CLR 139 at 150 per Mason CJ, Brennan, Gaudron and McHugh JJ
 (1908) 7 CLR 277 at 304 (citing a passage from Maxwell on Statutes 4th ed at 121)
 2 Wils 275
 (1994) 179 CLR 427 at 435
 179 CLR at 436
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.
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!
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
School safety problems
South Australia’s Costa Concordia Safety Problems
The City of Playford plays Russian Roulette Part 6b
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.