Part 33. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity: Filing a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner.

Since Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity are genocidal, the obvious thing to do after almost 7 years of pointing out to Ronald’s space readers that the the Australian Parliament is a long-term serial abuser of human rights was to file a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner.[UNHRC]. The text of the emailed complaint is further  down in this posting. The really boring legal details are contained in this 163 page Emcott Report – Volume 2.[GENOCIDE]

If Centrelink hits you with a Compliance failure penalty or a rip-off demand for repayment of an alleged debt, YOU WILL NEED THIS REPORT IF YOU WANT TO FIGHT BACK.emcott-volume-2

Keep in mind that in 1995, when Serbian militia forces marched 7,000 Moslem men and boys away at gun point, the UN Peace Keeper force simply watched. The next time those men and boys were seen, their bodies were being dug up from a mass grave in the Srebrenica Enclave. The irony in the following long-winded, absolutely boring legal issues complaint to the UNHRC is that Radovan Karadzic’s lawyer, Peter Robinson could use this complaint to mount a manifest Ostensible Bias defence on behalf of his client. Such is the perverse nature of the legal system!

[Note: The short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-G8   ]

Be warned; beyond this point lies the danger of being bored to death if you are not a lawyer, an academic, a desperate welfare recipient being ripped off by Centrelink, or someone looking for a way of “beating the rap” on a criminal charge.

genocide-law

Australia’s Genocide Law – Section 42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act. This Bill was given “Royal Assent” on behalf of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth 2nd, Queen of Australia, by Sir Peter Cosgrove (‘Cossie‘) on 1st July 2016, i.e. during the mass media Federal Election blackout. No politician who voted for this genocidal law wanted the 37.4% of voters who could be harmed by this reprehensible law, to find out what they had done.

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

The email to the UNHRC

TO:     The office of the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner

            United Nations

            Via email.

Dear Commissioner,

Re: An outraged victim’s complaint concerning Australia’s genocide law and the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll.

 Please note: If I have sent this email to the wrong email address for dealing with alleged genocide or crimes against humanity, please forward this email to the appropriate email address within the UNHRC.

 I provide this email and the appended documents to the UNHRC as a victim’s formal complaint concerning the murderous impact of Australia’s genocide law, Section42C of the Commonwealth of Australia’s Social Security (Administration) Act (1991). [Hereafter referred to as Section 42C for the sake of brevity] A copy of the most recent iteration of this genocidal legislation is appended.

In addition to that genocide legislation, I also append a PDF copy of Part 2 of the Emcott Report, a more detailed 123 page summary of the points of Australian and international law and a summary of my views on this reprehensible, iniquitous law that a person, or persons, in your office have known about for approximately a decade.

It is my opinion that had your office acted when I first contacted it via email about a decade ago, then hundreds of thousands of people would not have been terrorized by the Australian Federal Parliament and an unknown number of lives would have been saved.

Victims of crime do not have to be lawyers or even be functionally literate to file complaints alleging crimes against humanity or genocide, although it certainly helps to have access to legal advice and to also be functionally literate. Please note that in October 2016 I also filed a more detailed complaint but as yet I have not been contacted by a representative of your Office to discuss the issued raised in that email communication.

For the UNHRC to have legal jurisdiction to investigate Section 42C there are a number of legal prerequisites that must be met and I would therefore point out the following points for your consideration as to the merits of this complaint:

  1. Australia is a member of the United Nations and is subject to the provisions found in Article 1 – 4 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Both security of person and the right to life are contained with Article 3 and Section 42C violates these most basic of rights.
  2. Australia has ratified 6 human rights conventions including the Convention on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] and the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [ICESCR].
  3. As you are fully aware, Article 1.2 in both the ICCPR and the ICESCR prohibits the removal of, or denial of access to, the only means of subsistence that a targeted societal group may have.
  4. In July 2009, Francis Neale, the Co-Chairperson for the International bar Association – Rule of Law Action group stated that “All countries, even those governed by the crudest dictatorship, need or have laws, although they disregard the individual or collective rights of all or parts of the population. Indeed, apartheid was enforced with meticulous attention to form and detail.”
  5. Like Apartheid in South Africa, Section 42C is a very deliberate, i.e. legislated, violation of the human rights obligations. In this instance Section 42C violates the obligation not to deprive a targeted societal group of the means to survive. Whilst this legislation may be a defacto death sentence, it is still a death sentence when impoverished people who may be emotionally vulnerable, or who are suffering a life-threatening medical condition, are deprived of their sole means of subsistence and as a direct consequence, wind up dead.
  6. The power to coerce and intimidate implicit in Section 42C is this ability to deprive vulnerable people of the ability to survive. It is truly reprehensible legislation that does no good, only evil.
  7. The death toll caused by this supposedly ‘lawful’ violation of human rights is unreported by the Australian Department of Human Services administrators, a fact that makes it difficult to precisely determine the number of people who have been murdered by the enforcement of this brutal genocidal law.
  8. In November 2005, an Australian senate committee, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, secretly classified submission 287 to the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry as confidential.
  9. A check via the Internet to the aph.gov.au web site to ascertain the current status of this submission as to the current status of this submission will confirm that it is officially listed as “Not yet available”.
  10. Titled “Who are the real terrorists?”, this submission raised concerns about the legality of the Section 42C “Breaching fatalities” and it is my belief that the confidential classification of this submission constitutes a violation of section 142.2 and 149 of the Commonwealth of Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), i.e. obstructing justice so that the politicians in the Australia Parliament could both avoid being held accountable for these murders and continue to persecute welfare recipients, possibly for financial and political gain.
  11. In January 2006, and again in March 2006, another senate committee, the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee [EWRE], dismissed the murders of impoverished welfare recipients who had been unconstitutionally and inhumanely deprived of a subsistence allowance, often for incredibly spurious and irrelevant reasons, as “irrelevant”.
  12. It is my opinion that when it comes to deaths caused by the deliberate violation of human rights, regardless of the manner of death, that there is no such thing as an “irrelevant” murder.    
  13. Section 42C has spawned a plethora of other human rights violations that constitute crimes against humanity, including the violation of the right to a fair hearing under Australian laws in accordance with Section 75(v) of the Australian constitution.
  14. Section 75(v) separates the powers of the parliament from the powers of the court and the determination of the primary facts of the matter in tortious conduct by government agencies, e.g. the Department of Human Services or the Department of Social Services, is a matter for the courts, not public servants.
  15. In a clear violation of this constitutional restriction on the Australian Parliament, Section 42C empowers “the Secretary” to make legal decisions that are inconsistent with Section 75(v) of the Australian constitution. By doing so, welfare recipients are deprived of their right to a fair hearing and are forced into a government operated quasi-legal appeals system in which all decision-makers who review decisions “stand in the shoes” of the original decision-makers.

 In summary, it is my belief that in addition to violating a plethora of Australian, state, territory, federal laws, and case law decisions, Section 42C violates the following provisions within the Rome Statute:

[THE ROME STATUTE]

THE ROME STATUTE: Article 6 – Genocide [For ‘group’, read ‘welfare recipients’.]

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:

(a)     Killing members of the group;

(b)     Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c)     Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

 

THE ROME STATUTE:  Provisions in Article 7 that may apply to the ‘No show, no pay’ breaching penalties include the following: [It is for a court to decide which provisions apply.]

Article 7 – Crimes against humanity

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

(a)     Murder;

(b)     Extermination;

(c)     Enslavement;

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

(f)     Torture;

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

 (k)     Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. [The great ‘catch-all’.]

  1. For the purpose of paragraph 1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(h)     “The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;  [Readers please note: Re“domination”, as in the lethal ‘No Show, No Pay’, No Survive law.]

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

Paragraph 5 of the Australian constitution states that “the laws of the Commonwealth are binding on the Courts, judges and the people…”

However, in the appended email below from Federal Agent Pearce, a representative of the Australian Federal Police, “government protocols and “gravity/sensitivity” are given precedence ahead of the constitution and criminal statute laws when members of the Australian Parliament, or the Parliament itself, are accused of breaches of the law.

THE POSEN MINDSET

The ability to violate human rights is perhaps best encapsulated in the Posen Mindset, i.e. the speech given by Heinrich Himmler at an SS conference held in Posen in 1943.

HEINRICH HIMMLER – Adolf Hitler’s ‘Final Solution’.

“This is a glorious page in our history and one that has never been written … We had a moral right, we had a duty, to destroy this people which wanted to destroy us … All in all, we can say that we have fulfilled this most difficult duty for the love of our people. And our spirit, our soul, our character has not suffered injury from it.”

Heinrich Himmler speaking to leaders of the SS at Posen in 1943. (Nuremberg Document PS1919.) In all, some 16 million people, including 10 million Jews, were murdered in Nazi concentration camps.

The power to violate human rights should never be confused with the right to violate these rights. Unfortunately, as happens elsewhere, this is the case in Australia. The contempt of the Australian Parliament for International Law is exemplified by the following examples:

  1. On April 25th 2015, a ‘Full Bench’ decision by 5 justices of the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea handed down its findings in SC1497, Namah v Minister for Immigration, ruling that Australia and Papua New Guinea had violated human rights in the treatment and unlawful detention of asylum seekers on Manus Island.
  2. Justice Terrance Higgins stated that “Treating those required to remain in the relocation centre as prisoners irrespective of their circumstances or status… is to offend against their rights and freedoms.”

In violation of the human rights, vulnerable people were held against their will in circumstances that resulted in 2 fatalities. As a direct consequence of the PNG Supreme Court decision, the Australian Government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, is now trying to re-locate the Manus Island inmates to the United States. Media reports indicate that whilst so of the affected people support this action, some do not. For those who do not wish to be again forcibly relocated against their will, this constitutes a second violation of their human rights by the Australian Government. Given the following statement below, this is not surprising in the least.

  1. ‘This parliament should decide what our obligations are under these conventions – not those who seek to direct us otherwise from places outside this country, such as foreign courts or the United Nations’

The above statement was made by the [then] Minister for Immigration, Scott Morrison MP, during parliamentary debate on the Migration & Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylums Legacy caseload) Bill 2014 during parliamentary debate on the 25th September 2014. That statement to the Australian Parliament was effectively a contemptuous ‘1-finger-salute’ to both the United Nations and the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court by the Australian Parlaiment.

At this time the Australian Federal Treasurer, Mr. Morrison is one of several members of the former Abbott Government who are the subject of a complaint to the International criminal court at The Hague in the Netherlands. In addition to Mr. Morrison, complaints of alleged human rights violations have also been lodged against the former Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, the current Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, and 16 other members of the Abbott Government.

My complaint is far more extensive in its allegations.

Over a timeframe measured in decades, the Australian Federal Parliament, with the support of some sections of the mass media, has violated the civil rights of millions of people. The alleged violations include violating constitutional and human rights, the violation of criminal laws and procedural fairness principles and, perhaps most frightening of all, the violation of the right to life with an unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll that may be close to, or exceeds, 100,000 in number.

My complaint thus encompasses a massive politically driven humanitarian that is of holocaust proportions in scope and it is my contention that it is highly inappropriate for the UNHRC, or any persons employed by the UNHRC, to opt to do nothing about this disaster. The FUNCTION of the UNHRC  is to stop such human rights violations and if the FORM and PROCESS , i.e. the paperwork, is incorrect, that is not a valid excuse for confronting the harm caused by Section 42C.

JOHN HOWARD LIED AND 250,000 HAVE DIED.

In 2002 03, the then Australian  Prime Minister, John Howard mislead the Australian people, and by extension, the United Nations, when he claimed to have “irrefutable proof” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. However, after the unsanctioned, i.e. illegal, invasion of Iraq in March 2003, no such weapons were found. On July 6th 2016, the Privy Council of the British Parliament released its 12 volume publication of its inquiry into the illegal invasion. Commonly referred to as the Chilcot Report, it contained the following statements in the executive summary:

[ The Chilcot Report]

Report of a Committee of Privy Counsellors 

Sir John Chilton:

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 6 July 2016

HC 624   [A 7-year inquiry – 2,600,000 words in 12 volumes]

Executive Summary (160 pages)

(Part 4.4 The search for WMD)

Page 77

  1. In addition to the conclusions of those reports, the Inquiry notes the forthright statement in March 2005 of the US Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. Reporting to President Bush, the Commission stated that “the [US] Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure.”
  1. The evidence in Section 4.4 shows that, after the invasion, the UK Government, including the intelligence community, was reluctant to admit, and to recognise publicly, the mounting evidence that there had been failings in the UK’s pre-conflict collection, validation, analysis and presentation of intelligence on Iraq’s WMD.
  1. Almost immediately after the start of the invasion, UK Ministers and officials sought to lower public expectations of immediate or significant finds of WMD in Iraq.
  1. The lack of evidence to support pre-conflict claims about Iraq’s WMD challenged the credibility of the Government and the intelligence community, and the legitimacy of the war.
  1. The Government and the intelligence community were both concerned about the consequences of the presentational aspects of their pre-war assessments being discredited.

 

The Post Conflict Period

Page 134 – 140

  1. The UK did not achieve its objectives, despite the best efforts and acceptance of risk in a dangerous environment by military and civilian personnel.
  1. Although the UK expected to be involved in Iraq for a lengthy period after the conflict, the Government was unprepared for the role in which the UK found itself from April 2003. Much of what went wrong stemmed from that lack of preparation.
  1. In any undertaking of this kind, certain fundamental elements are of vital importance:
  • the best possible appreciation of the theatre of operations, including the political, cultural and ethnic background, and the state of society, the economy and infrastructure;
  • a hard-headed assessment of risks;
  • objectives which are realistic within that context, and if necessary limited – rather than idealistic and based on optimistic assumptions; and
  • allocation of the resources necessary for the task – both military and civil.

 

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

post-conflict Iraq.

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

A “can do” attitude is laudably ingrained in the UK Armed Forces – a determination to get on with the job, however difficult the circumstances – but this can prevent ground truth from reaching senior ears. At times in Iraq, the bearers of bad tidings were not heard.

  1. The Inquiry views the inability of the FCO, the MOD and DFID to confirm how many civilian personnel were deployed to or employed in Iraq, in which locations and in what roles, as a serious failure. Data management systems must provide accurate information on the names, roles and locations of all staff for whom departments have duty of care responsibilities.

THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Graphic CNN video footage of the bombardment of Iraqi cities and video footage from news teams pre-embedded with the invading forces shows massive destruction and it is known that in addition to military casualties, there were significant civilian casualties caused by the unjustified, unsanctioned invasion of Iraq. At the present time, the unintended consequences of the illegal invasion of Iraq includes casualties from all causes since the March 2003 invasion are estimated to number around 250,000. Other unintended consequences include the worst refugee crisis in Europe since World War 2 and the replacement of the Saddam Hussein potential ‘threat’ with the world wide real-threat posed by Islamic State, which has carried out dozens of terrorist attacks around the world and in the last year or so, has resulted in some 800 people being murdered.

Since the United states of America has not ratified the Rome statute, President George Bush 2nd, cannot be held accountable for any these ‘collateral damage’ deaths triggered by the illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003. However, Australia ratified the Rome Statute in 2000 and John Howard can be held accountable for the “collateral” death toll. Any investigation by the UNHRC should also look into the ‘collateral’ death toll caused by his government’s illegal enforcement of the Breaching Performance Indicator Targets, i.e. breaching quotas, that Centrelink reported to the Independent Pearce Inquiry in 2001.

There is no statute of limitations on the crime of murder, even if it is systemic, government policy approved. The reference to ‘2004’ in the email below is a reference to the refusal of the Australian Federal Police to investigate these systemic murders. The number of Australian agencies with investigative powers that could have, and should have, investigated these alleged crimes against humanity includes a broad range of agencies that ;ought to have known what was happening and intervened to prevent further harm or loss of life. This did not happen:

  1. The Australian Federal Police [AFP];
  2. Fair Work Australia commission {FWA];
  3. The Australian Crime Commission [ACC];
  4. The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman;
  5. The Australian Communications & Media Authority;
  6. The Australian Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission;
  7. The Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

State level agencies or individual entities that have ignored or disregarded the lethal ‘negative impact’ of welfare penalties include:

  1. The South Australian Police;
  2. The New south Wales Police;
  3. All State and Territory Chief Coroners;
  4. The Sherriff of South Australia; Mark Stokes;
  5. The South Australian Attorney-General, John Rau;
  6. The Queensland Attorney-General, Yvette D’ Arth.

In March 2010, I emailed all 226 Members of the Australian Parliament protesting at the lethal consequences of the “Breaching” penalties. Assistant Secretary Skill’s letter on page 2 of volume 2 of The Emcott Report was the only response. Case studies 64 and 65 of volume 1 of The Emcott Report reveal correspondence between a member of the Federal Parliament, Nick Champion MP, and Assistant Secretary Neil Skill. However, at no time where the deaths reported to the parliament or raised in published Hansard Minutes of oversight committee hearings, e.g. the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. The Hansard Minutes are therefore ‘Gold Standard” evidence of the role of the federal parliament and the Australian Public service in concealing the death toll, whatever its size, from the Australian public, and also from the UNHRC and the ICC.

SOS, HELP, MAYDAY! – desperate circumstances require desperate solutions.

In order too discourage UNHRC ‘paper-shufflers’ from ignoring or losing this complaint, this complaint/appeal for help is being video recorded and will be posted on the Internet for review by any concerned citizens of the world.

Peter Robinson, the ICC accredited lawyer who represented Radovan Karadzic will receive a copy of this email so that if he deems it appropriate to do so, he can use this email and the issues raised in it to mount an Ostensible Bias appeal on behalf of his client.

Beyond that, Burundi, South Africa and Russia have withdrawn from the Rome Statute treaty and a number of other [African] nations are considering doing so, e.g. Kenya. Either this email, or the YouTube URL of the video of this email, will be made available to representatives of these nations, and to international human rights groups, so that any decisions made by the UNHRC in regard to this complaint are transparent decisions.

Finally, I would draw your attention to the intended policy of the Turnbull Government to move away from clean renewal energy sources of electrical generation and implement a potentially very dangerous policy of 76.5% of all power being generated by atmospheric polluting hydro-carbon based electrical energy production. This is potentially a ‘Life-on-Earth-Extinction-Policy as it has the potential to accelerate the process known as Global Warming.

The science behind the 76.5% hydro-carbon base electricity generation policy, if there is any, needs to be scrutinized and compared with the hard data on CO2 pollution levels and the bizarre weather changes that are now being experienced around the world.

Our world is a closed eco-system and if the electrical generation policies of the Turnbull Government pose a risk of increasing global warming, even if it does not represent a “life extinction” threat in the short-term, the 8 ‘Asthma storm’ deaths that recently occurred in Melbourne are inconsistent with the Turnbull Government’s “Right to life” obligations under Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights conventions. This is especially since experts are warning that due to global warming, such lethal storms may become a far more common occurrence.

The 1839 statement by an English Royal Commission that “It is the placing of life in peril that constitutes the crime” sums up the both the deliberate intent and practical consequence of Section 42C. This legislation does place life in peril and the unreported, classified, officially “irrelevant” fatalities are crimes against humanity on such a scale as to justify the use of the terms “genocide” and “holocaust”.

As survivors of the few remaining survivors of the NAZI Holocaust and other holocausts that have plagued our planet in the last 100 years or so can testify, “There are no fence-sitters in a holocaust.” 

The UNHRC must respond to this complaint and the following is expected:

  1. A public acknowledgement of the receipt of this complaint.
  2. An emailed acknowledged that is followed up immediately with a written response outlining any processes that need to be made in order too comply with any UNHRC ‘Due process of Law’
  3. Along with the 7.3 million Australians currently at risk, I have the right to heard and I insist upon the UNHRC respecting that right by assigning a UNHRC representative to talk to me about my concerns re the alleged genocidal impact of Section 42C.
  4. Legal support to prepare and submit any documentation required, if any, by the UNHRC before an investigation.

 Ronald Medlicott. Australian citizen, genocidal policies victim, and a Christian lay advocate for real justice in Australia.

VALE CURTIS CHENG.

The Media Convergence Review in 2011 was too narrow-minded in outlook thanks to the Gillard Government. The Internet and the nefarious uses it could be used for when targeting children was ignored. One downstream consequence of that short-sighted approach was the murder of Curtis Cheng by a 15-year-old boy, Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad, who had been radicalized via the Internet. One political mistake; two dead people.

media-review-submission

 

 

 

 

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

Part 32. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity: The word is GENOCIDE and I’m filing a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity: The word is GENOCIDE and I’m filing a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

[Note: the URL short link for this posting is  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-FS   ]

Below is the text of an email to Alan Tudge, the Minister for Human Services. In addition, the URL below is to a YouTube video of information sent to Senator Culleton who has a date with the High Court. If he does not use the evidence provided, then he too will be helping to conceal the genocidal abuse of Australia’s welfare recipients. WA voters take note of that.

The Culleton factor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RctoEN-ZuE8

Please be advised that I am in the process of filing a Crimes against Humanity complaint against the Australian Parliament re the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll caused by the unconstitutional, human rights violating ‘No pay, no show’ laws and Centrelink’s fraudulent abuses of power when attempting to recover alleged over-payments that are Commonwealth errors which should not have to be repaid.

Submission 287 to the 2005 Anti-terrorism Bill #2 is secretly classified as confidential – it was classified to conceal breaching fatalities but they are only a p[art of the problem. Centrelink’s heavy-handed dealing with  vulnerable people triggers heart attacks, strokes, and a rising suicide toll that has the RANZC of Psychiatrists very concerned.

ISIS is junk that the Howard Govt refused to scrap in ’05 so problems now are not an excuse for fraud and murder on a massive scale. I intend to pursue the issue as vigorously as possible with the UNHRC, the ICC, and in a few weeks, once more in the AAT.

IN THE MID 1990s WHEN I WAS A CES JOB CLUB  MANAGER, SOME CASE MANAGERS ENGAGED IN ADMINISTRATIVE BREACHING AND BREACHING COMPETITIONS

AS A JOB NETWORK EMPLOYEE I BECAME AWARE OF BREACHING FOR FINANCIAL GAIN – THE JOB NETWORK FACED BANKRUPTCY TWICE IN ITS FIRST 6-MONTHS OF OPERATIONS.

TAKE NOTE – THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON THE FATALITIES FROM THESE CRIMES.

PLEASE: Check out these YouTube documentary videos for insight into what i am doing:

[Senator Culleton is under pressure to publicly expose the unreported death toll that DHS officials have never ‘collected’.  If he tables the documents provided in the parliament or the High Court, thanks to Tony Abbott and the HIP inquiries, we will have another dissolution of Parliament.]

Burn Notice: The Others

Waivergate – Part 1

Waivergate – Part 2

Waivergate – Part 3

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

Ronald’s space (about 25,000 hits*)
https://yadnarie48.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/part-31-australias-irrelevant-crimes-against-humanity-genocide/

Work backwards on this website – ANY MP or senator who wishes to sue me for defamation needs to realize that Assistant Secretary Neil Skill’s “Centrelink does not collect…” letter is a political party killer as well as as a tortious conduct killer.

PLEASE NOTE: THE TYPING AND SENDING OF THIS EMAIL HAS BEEN VIDEOED AND WILL BE UPLOADED TO YOUTUBE

  • OOPS – Thank you folks, it is 38,927 hits at the time of posting this.

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

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

Part 31: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity”: GENOCIDE.

Australia’s supposedly “irrelevant” crimes against humanity can be summed up in just one word:

GENOCIDE.

Note the short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-FN 

For my lastest video update, if you have 14 minutes and 41 seconds to spare, check out this:

Section 42 of the Social Security (Administration) Act is Australia’s genocide law. Whilst “No show, no pay” may be a great cliche, the real-world human impact can best be described as “Do as we say or you may die.”

No-one should kid themselves; if you deprive impoverished people of their sole means to survive, some will die. In violation of human rights conventions that prohibits national governments from deliberately depriving people of what may be their sole means of subsistence for about 40 years or so, it is should come as no surprise that the death toll is:

  1. Unreported by Centrelink;

    In just one simple statement, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill explains how post-breaching fatalities have been kept from the public for decades, i.e. they did not bother to "collect" this data.

    In just one simple statement, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill explains how post-breaching fatalities have been kept from the public for decades, i.e. they did not bother to “collect” this data.

  2. Secretly classified as “confidential” by the Federal Parliament;

    A Check on submissions to the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry will show that submission 287 is officially "Not yet available". As this letter reveals, it is secretly classified as confidential.

    A Check on submissions to the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry will show that submission 287 is officially “Not yet available”. As this letter reveals, it is secretly classified as confidential.

  3. Also dismissed as “irrelevant” by the Federal Parliament;

    Work Choices legislation shared common ground with Breaching legislation in that it was bad legislation that would seriously disadvantage Australia's already disavantaged unemployed by making tham even more vulnerable to predatory employers. Some employers were misusing breaching legislation by offering workers $2 per hour and threatening to have the job seekers breached for refusing to accept a "job". Never mind minimum wage rates, if job seekers did not take the job, they were breached. This behaviour by employers and the fatalities caused by breaching activity were, as this email makes quite clear, brushed under the carpet by dismissing the submission, and therefore the fatalities, as "not relevant". Would any families of those who died would agree with this callous summary dismissal of the post breaching fatalities by the EWRE Committee?

    Work Choices legislation shared common ground with Breaching legislation in that it was bad legislation that would seriously disadvantage Australia’s already disavantaged unemployed by making tham even more vulnerable to predatory employers. Some employers were misusing breaching legislation by offering workers $2 per hour and threatening to have the job seekers breached for refusing to accept a “job”. Never mind minimum wage rates, if job seekers did not take the job, they were breached. This behaviour by employers and the fatalities caused by breaching activity were, as this email makes quite clear, brushed under the carpet by dismissing the submission, and therefore the fatalities, as “not relevant”. Would any families of those who died would agree with this callous summary dismissal of the post breaching fatalities by the EWRE Committee?

  4. Ignored by the Federal Police due to the “gravity/sensitivity” of the number of deaths that have occurred.

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

    This undated Federal Police letter , which gives the proverbial “1-finger-salute” to paragraph 5 of the Australian Constitution, was secretly classified confidential in November 2005 by the Senate’s LEG-CON Committee, possibly to conceal a ‘dirty deal’ between the AFP and Howard Government which still protects federal politicians who are caught out rorting  parliamentary entitlements from being investigated. Without any Federal Police investigation, politicians who rort the Entitlements Fund cannot be prosecuted.

At the end of the day, from a criminal law or crimes against humanity perspective, does it matter if the total “scorecard” is less than 100,000 or possibly more than 500,000?

DSS and Centrelink annual reports are big on "Scorecard" savings but are also TOTALLY DEVOID of any reports about the humanitarian consequences caused by those savings. The absence of this data from these reports to parliament makes it quite clear that the bureaucrats responsible for these reports, KNEW what they were hiding from the parliament and the public.

THE “SCORECARD” REPORTS: readers should note that that they are TOTALLY DEVOID of any reports about the humanitarian consequences caused by those savings. The absence of this data from these reports to parliament makes it quite clear that the bureaucrats responsible for these reports, KNEW what they were hiding from the parliament and the public.

For the victims, whatever the number, “dead is dead”.  Around the world, the challenge for all decent people of goodwill is to ensure that no more Aussie Battlers wind up dead because of Section 42’s defacto death penalty that is administered, not by a Court of Law but but clerks, some of whom revel in having the power of life and death at their fingertips!

Under Australia’s criminal laws, citizens who do nothing about these deaths makes them an accessory by ‘Act of Omission”, a crime under section 4.2.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995). So, if you live in Australia and have read this posting, what is your legal standing in regard to the Section 42 death toll?

Note to people who live in South Africa – your government’s decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute treaty which gives jurisdiction to the International Criminal Court may actually have been legally valid. the United Nations Human Rights Commission has known about this genocide for years but so has done nothing to stop it. If that is not bias, what is it?

Ronald Medlicott.  Registered teacher and a lay Christian advocate for justice in Australia.

 

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

Hurricane Anon: The hurricane you have when (officially), you are not having a hurricane.

p1-eye-of-storm

[Source: The Advertiser, Page 1. 28th September 2016]

A storm of hurricane force intensity but the word ‘hurricane’ was never mentioned and consequently, people never knew the deadly peril that about to hit them in just a few hours time.

p4-so-much-damage-so-quick[Source: The Advertiser, page 2. 30th September 2016]

On 28th September 2016, South Australia was blasted by a super-storm of hurricane force that, officially, was not a hurricane and therefore no hurricane warning was issued. It was only by LUCK, or the grace of God, that no-one was killed. The text that follows is a copy of my report to South Australian politicians expressing my viewpoint that both the Weatherill Government and the Turnbull Government need to held accountable for the failure to issue a warning that would have clearly indicated the extent of the danger that the people in South Australia were facing. [Note that the text is unformatted for this web page at the moment.]

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

“Hurricane Anon”: The Super-stormp1-winds-of-fury

[Source: The Advertiser, Page 1, 30th September 2016. Parks and businesses may have been closed, but in a criminal act of reckless endangerment, schools remained open during this super-storm/hurricane. I kid you not. ]

 

 “It’s taken a super-storm in South Australia for the federal government to discover the need for energy security.”

Bill Shorten MP Federal Leader of the Opposition, Channel 7 News, 6.00 PM,   7th October 2016

p5-tower-down

 [Source: The Advertiser, page 5. 6th October 2016]

Meteorologists definition of a hurricane:

Technically, hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones are all “Tropical Cyclones” that form in tropical regions under very specific hydro-thermal conditions.

The Emcott Public Safety Hurricane Definition:  [EPSHD]

Any storm with wind strength that is directly comparable to the Siffer-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale, i.e. 119 Km/hour or faster, that may pose a clear and present danger to life. Specific characteristics of an EPSHD hurricane include:

  1. Formation anywhere at any time, under any conditions and/or;

  2. Injury or death to people, domestic pets and livestock or wildlife, and/or;

  3. Damage or destroy man-made structures such as homes, commercial or public buildings, or infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and power lines, and/or;

  4. Cause widespread, damaging flooding over a wide region, state, or nation, and/or;

  5. Can cause foreseeable economic loss from any, and all of the above.

RISK CANNOT BE ABROGATED: An EPSHD classified hurricane is a severe weather event that poses a clearly identifiable public danger that is inconsistent with the duty of care obligations that any government agency, Federal, State or Territory, owes to the general public as per Section 14.7.3.2 of the Report of the Home Insulation Program Royal Commission, aka the Hanger Royal Commission.

 14.7.3.2  RISK CANNOT BE ABROGATED  [Capitals and underlining used  for added emphasis.]

  • Government must recognize that as much as it might seek to do so, risk cannot be abrogated.
  • The responsibility of Government is to care for its citizens and;
  • To exercise care and diligence to do everything reasonable to ensure that its citizens are not placed in danger by its actions, particularly risk of death and serious injury.

 

14.7.3.2.1  The Australian Government should not seek to abrogate responsibility for identified risk.  [Underlining used  for added emphasis.]

  • If another party (for example a State or Territory Government) is identified as being able to mitigate an identified risk, this does not remove the Department’s responsibility to take the necessary steps to manage the risk and to ensure that others are doing the same.
  • The Australian government should engage with the identified risk manager to ensure the adequacy of those arrangements for the new circumstance, and consider whether there are additional steps that it could take to complement that action.

 

An Emcott Classified Hurricane is therefore also any storm of 119Km/hour wind speed that is a threat to the welfare and safety of the public and as such, creates a significant public risk that cannot be abrogated by any government agency through reliance upon meteorological or other technical terms or departmental policies, practices or procedures.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY COMES FIRST: Regardless of how or where it was formed, if a storm has wind speeds of 119 Km/hour or greater and can foreseeably injure or kill people or animals and/or, destroy man-made structures or cause serious economic harm, then it is an EPSHD Hurricane and a state of emergency should be declared in order to ensure Government’s public safety obligations are met.

 

 

SOUTH AUSTRALIA WAS LUCKY; THIS TIME!

 

Hurricane Matthew live:

Landfalls and massive flooding batter USA as raging storms wreak havoc UPDATED 21:25, 8 OCT 2016 BY STEPHEN JONES

The United States is braced as the first Atlantic hurricane to hit since 2007 brings tornadoes and a 12ft storm surge.

  • More than three million people have been evacuated from Florida, Georgia, North and South Carolinaas Hurricane Matthew hits. The biggest storm in a century is set to hit around 26 million people with President Obama declaring a state of emergency and mobilizing thousands of National Guard troops.
  • At least 842 people have already been killed as Matthew swept through Haiti, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic and the Bahamas – and deaths are being reported in the USA this morning.
  • North Carolina Governor reveals there are three reported deaths so far in the state. The news comes as the death toll in Haiti almost hits 900.
  • Cholera outbreaks have killed at least 13 people in southwest Haiti in the wake of Hurricane Matthew, government officials told Reuters on Saturday, voicing concern that the disease was spreading.
  • Six people died of Cholera in a hospital in the southern town of Randel, while another seven died in the western coastal town of Anse-dAinault, the officials said, likely as flood waters mixed with sewage.
  • Hurricane Matthew slammed into South Carolina on Saturday, packing a diminished yet still powerful punch after killing almost 900 people in Haiti and causing major flooding and widespread power outages as it skirted Florida and Georgia.
  • The most powerful Atlantic storm since 2007 left flooding and wind damage in Florida before moving north to soak coastal Georgia and the Carolinas. Earlier on Saturday, wind speeds had dropped below 85 miles per hour (135 kph), making it a Category 1 hurricane, the weakest on the Saffir-Simpson scale of 1 to 5.

[Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/hurricane-matthew-live-landfalls-massive-8995023]

 

‘[HURRICANE ANON’ was an EPSHD Category 1 hurricane.]

 

A Royal Commission or a judicial inquiry is needed to investigate the following issues which are matters of fact:

 

  1. Regardless of the name used, any storm of hurricane force can foreseeably injure and kill people, and/or cause widespread property damage due to wind strength and/or flooding.
  2. The “super-storm” that hit South Australia on 28th September 2016 and destroyed more than 20 power transmission towers was of Category One Hurricane-Wind-Strength and was a foreseeable risk or peril to the residents of South Australia.
  3. The Weatherill Government endangered life by failing to issue a timely, pro-active warning and declaring a State of Emergency before the storm struck the State.
  4. The Turnbull Government also failed to act to protect South Australians by recommending to the Weatherill Government declare a State of Emergency before the Super-storm arrived.
  5. On the 29th September 2016, Prime Minister Turnbull criticized Labour State Governments for setting “unrealistic goals” for reliance upon renewable energy sources to generate electricity.
  6. A report released on 30th September 2016 by a United States federal government agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), reveals that Carbon Dioxide greenhouse gas levels now exceed 400 parts per million due to the extremely high global usage of fossil fuels.
  7. Reliance on fossil fuels for not less than 76.5% of national electricity requirements may now be an environmentally dangerous and recklessly irresponsible demand by the Turnbull Government for it has the potential to increase both the frequency and intensity of ‘Super-storm’ activity globally.


‘Hurricane Anon’

(The Clayton’s Hurricane that you have when you are [technically] not having a hurricane.)

The Weatherill and Turnbull Governments both took a criminally reckless risk with public safety by deciding not to declare a state of emergency and, by a stroke of luck, ‘Hurricane Anon’ missed the Adelaide urban area by about 150 kilometres. However, as the Siffer-Simpson Scale below indicates, had this “super-storm” impacted directly on Adelaide’s densely populated metropolitan area, thousands of people may have been seriously injured or killed as has just happened with the Hurricane Matthew in the Caribbean and the United States .

Siffer-Simpson Scale: Category One Hurricane:

[NOTE: This information has been bullet-pointed for clarity and emphasis.]

  1. Sustained winds – 119-153 km/hr.
  2. Damaging winds…primarily to unanchored structures (such as school portables).
  3. Some damage is likely to poorly constructed signs. Loose outdoor items will become projectiles, causing additional damage.
  4. Persons struck by windborne debris risk injury and possible death.
  5. Numerous large branches of healthy trees will snap… trees will be uprooted, especially where the ground is saturated. Many areas will experience power outages with some downed power poles.  

 

Hurricane Iwa (passing just northwest of Kauai in 1982) and Hurricane Dot (landfall on Kauai in 1959) are examples of Category One hurricanes that directly impacted Hawaii. Source: http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/pages/aboutsshs.php

 

 

SANTA NEVER MADE INTO DARWIN:

Santa never made it into Darwin on Christmas Day in 1974 because a big wind named Cyclone Tracy had blown the town away. On the 28th September 2016, electricity never made it into Adelaide because another big wind, Hurricane Anon, a category 1 hurricane  blew away South Australia’s  electricity infrastructure. In both cases, many people who should have known better, failed to act because they did not comprehend scale of the approaching danger. In 1974 that failure to act placed 100,000 lives in danger; in 2016 the failure to act placed 1.7 million people in similar life threatening peril. One unconfirmed leak stated that SAPOL internal documents used the word “hurricane” when describing the approaching storm. A Royal Commission or a judicial inquiry is required to determine why both the Turnbull Government and the Weatherill Government failed to pro-actively  declare a state of emergency before the Super-storm, i.e. ‘Hurricane Anon’ battered the state on the 28th September 2016.

 

In the USA hurricanes kill an average of 80 people a year and as I draft this report [30-9-16] Jamaica is battening down and preparing for the onslaught of Hurricane Matthew, a deadly category 4 hurricane, is reported to have already killed 100 people.  However, despite the known danger to life posed by hurricanes, such was the state of unpreparedness in South Australia for the destruction that ‘Hurricane Anon’ would inflict upon South Australia that no hurricane force storm alert was issued, or a proactive State of Emergency  issued. As a direct consequence, the lives of 1.7 million people were recklessly placed in life threatening peril.

 

It is a matter of fact that the lives of literally hundreds of thousands school children, were casually placed at risk. In Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, hurricanes are a common occurrence and the dangers are clearly recognized. Consequently, when a severe storm of hurricane force is detected, steps are implemented to pro-actively protect lives and property. Such was the ‘slack-whacker’ approach by state and federal authorities to ‘Hurricane Anon’ that children as young as 5-years-old were sent to school whilst the state was being battered by a super-storm!. As is pointed out in information sourced from a US Government agency, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, (NOAA) some classrooms are especially vulnerable to damage or even total destruction by these storms. If the cyclonic ‘Micro-bursts’ embedded in Hurricane Anon had occurred in the Adelaide’s metropolitan area, school children and school staff could have been killed or seriously injured. [A matter or WorkSafe?]

 

As a school teacher and as a grand-parent of school-aged children, I demand to know why, when commercial businesses were closed due to the extreme weather, young children were allowed to attend school during a super-storm of hurricane force when there was an easily foreseeable risk of serious or fatal injury by flying debris or cyclonic windstorm impact.

 

It is manifestly evident that evaluating the causes and responses to the Great Wednesday Blackout and the responses to the widespread damage that occurred will not be adequate. The far more serious issue was, and still is the reasons for the total lack of preparedness by the general public for the foreseeable life-threatening dangers posed by violent storm. It is glaringly obvious that there was a catastrophic systems failure with no appropriate warnings being issued and no timely declaration of a State of Emergency as the super-storm approached. Another glaring system failure was the lack of statutory authority that would have enabled emergency services to deal more effectively with the known risks associated with hurricane force storms, e.g. “unnecessary travel” that increased exposure to flying debris, falling trees, aqua-planning and other storm hazards,

 

There are literally hundreds of issues that a royal commission must consider including:

 

  1. Why did this lack of adequate warning occur, i.e. why did the nation’s extensive (and expensive) public and private meteorology services all fail to provide a public warning that a ‘storm’ of Category One hurricane force was about to slam into South Australia and that damage to the state’s power lines was very likely to occur?
  2. What other systemic factors increased the overall danger and risks to the general public, e.g. the lack of public awareness that word ‘storm’ includes hurricane strength storms?
  3. What were the foreseeable risks to the public that eventuated as a consequence?
  4. What short-term, intermediate-term and longer-term factors prevented or reduced the capability of emergency services to pro-actively prevent damage, e.g. crop losses?
  5. Why was it that at least 48 hours before Hurricane Anon slammed into South Australia, the ADF failed to give timely advice to both the South Australian Government and the Federal Government that the “severe storm” was, according to the Siffer-Simpson Wind Scale, of hurricane force and therefore both an appropriate alert and safety instructions should be issued to the South Australian public, e.g. evacuation instructions?
  6. How effective were the initial public safety responses of the Weatherill Government in addressing the perceived life-threatening dangers posed by the super-storm?
  7. How effective were the disaster relief responses of the Turnbull Government on 29th September 2016 in addressing the immediate dangers to South Australian residents, e.g. the substantial infrastructure damage and the widespread flood problems caused by the still on-going super-storm?
  8. What is the likelihood that hurricane force storms will become a far more occurrence than a “once-in-fifty-years” event? The claim made by Prime Minister Turnbull that labour state governments were setting “unrealistic goals” in the setting of renewable energy targets were inconsistent with scientific information issued by NOAA 24 hours later.
  • Implicit in the NOAA information is the very real possibility that the “once-in-50 years” hurricane force super-storms that strike South Australia may now become a more frequent, annual danger the South Australian community.
  • The matters raised in this NOAA warning have profound ramifications that need to acknowledged and addressed in an impartial judicial inquiry rather than being a matter for political debate where ideology, vested interest and the gaining or retaining of political power may be issues that hinder or totally prevent the objective decision making now required as a result of ‘Hurricane Anon’s impact upon our state.
  • John Howard wrongly claimed to have “irrefutable evidence” that Iraq was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. As a direct consequence of that ‘error’, 250,000 are dead, the world is facing its worst refugee crisis since World War 2, and in the last year alone, Islamic terrorists have conducted more than 40 attacks that have claimed the lives of over 700 people.
  • An important issue for any public inquiry is the question as to whether or not Prime Minister Turnbull, or his Ministers for Environment and Energy, were aware of the NOAA research findings, what their appraisal of these finding were, and what was the scientific basis for ignoring these alarming findings.
  • The last point above is relevant to the terms of reference of a public inquiry because empirical evidence based decision-making was one of the key recommendations contained in the Home Insulation Program Report of the Hanger Commission of Inquiry and it is imperative that the public be made aware if lives were again being placed in danger by politicians and public servants who may still be making policy decisions based on assumptions and ideology rather than upon irrefutable empirical scientific evidence.

 

NOAA: GLOBAL WARMING FINDINGS HAVE SUPER-STORM IMPLICATIONS:

Hurricane Anon may have been formed due to global warming and if this was the case, South Australia can expect such storms to increase in both frequency and strength.

 

NOAA is a US federal government agency that is one of the world’s leading scientific research agencies in the field of oceanic and atmospheric research. It is tasked with protecting 250 million US residents and with issuing timely warning to the global maritime and aviation industries. Any published scientific concerns expressed by NOAA that may have implication for the health, welfare and safety of South Australians should therefore be given very serious consideration by any judicial inquiry into the systemic failures exposed by the super-storm. One of the issues that requires serious consideration is this Hurricane force storm, i.e. ‘Hurricane Anon’ may well be the first hurricane in what may prove to be South Australia’s first ‘hurricane season’. Just 48 hours after the super-storm struck South Australia, NOAA published a report summary on the Internet titled Carbon dioxide levels race past troubling milestone.”

NOAA Internet publication:

http://www.noaa.gov/stories/carbon-dioxide-levels-race-past-troubling-milestone

 

The NOAA media publication contained very sobering empirical statements that may have a direct bearing upon why ‘Hurricane Anon’ was formed so far south of the Tropics and consequently these statements need to be impartially evaluated by a public inquiry:

 

  • Carbon dioxide levels in Earth’s atmosphere passed a troubling milestone for good this summer and locked in levels of the heat-trapping gas not seen for millions of years.
  • It’s unlikely we’ll ever see CO2below 400 ppm during our lifetime and probably much longer, says Pieter Tans, lead scientist of NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network.
  • Measurements taken at NOAA’s atmospheric observatories on Mauna Loa and at the South Pole both indicate thatCO2has passed 400 ppm for good
  • “Four hundred parts per million is an arbitrary milestone, but it also may be a window on our future.
  • The last time CO2levels were this high was the mid-Pliocene warm period — about three million years ago. Paleoclimate research suggests that there was a lot less ice to cool the planet then. The extent of the Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet were severely reduced. Ditto for the Arctic. 
  • Three million years ago, sea levels were up to 65 feet higher than today [Underline emphasis added]
  • What’s more troubling is that the rate of CO2increase is more than 100 times faster than anything observed in the ice core record that goes back 800,000 years. This will continue as long as fossil fuel consumption remains at its current high level worldwide.” [Underline emphasis added].
  • For most of human evolution, CO2levels hovered around 278 ppm, helping to maintain the global climate in a relatively stable state conducive to agriculture and the growth of human populations. That all changed starting in the 1850s with massive deforestation around the world.
  • Then in the 1950s, a dramatic increase in the burning of fossil fuels — coal to make electricity and steel, oil for vehicles and manufacturing — vastly accelerated the rate of CO2being pumped into the atmosphere.
  • About 85% of all fossil fuel consumption since the start of the industrial revolution took place during my lifetime,” said Tans. [Underline emphasis added]

 

These statements by NOAA scientist, which are based upon empirical evidence rather than politically driven ideological beliefs, clearly express the view that Carbon Dioxide (greenhouse gas) levels are far too high and must be reduced. The viewpoint of NOAA experts thus contradict the “unrealistic goals – security of supply is the most important issue” statements made by Prime Minister Turnbull on 29th September.

 

 

If the views expressed by Prime Minister Turnbull are as scientifically flawed as John Howard’s erroneous belief that “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction’,  then South Australia faces a future in which severe storms of hurricane force may become a persistent danger. If this is the case, then any delay in disaster-proofing South Australia may only serve to decrease the time available in which to upgrade older buildings to the Category 5 building standards, or implement other engineering safety measures.

 

Political procrastination, or any other cause of delay in recognizing the current real-world impact of CO2 levels of 400ppm+ will also reduce the time needed to educate the public about how to prepare and survive a high intensity hurricane such as Hurricane Matthew which is pounding the Caribbean even as I draft this report. This lack of public aware of the dangers posed by such dangerous weather was demonstrated by people driving on submerged roads and even irresponsibly rubber-canoeing in raging river torrents. Any public education program also needs to be supported by “State of Emergency” powers if loss of life is to be minimized when a storm of hurricane force passes through a high-density urban areas and rapidly destroys buildings.

 

COMPLACENCY:

Are state and federal politicians so narrow-minded and ideologically driven and out of touch with the reality of Carbon Dioxide pollution that they choose to ignore the reason why “Santa never made into Darwin Christmas Day” in 1974. The ‘big picture’ reality of CO2 at 400ppm+ is that global warming is just as real as the super-storm that I call Hurricane Anon, i.e. the Category One  hurricane force storm that blew away South Australia’s electricity supply on 28th September 2016.

 

In raising these issues, I stress the point that these are just a few of the issues that need to consider with the primary issue being why it was that on 28th September 2016, because of criminally reckless acts of omission by the Weatherill and Turnbull administrations,  South Australia’s population was caught totally unprepared when a “severe storm” of Category One hurricane wind strength struck the state.  Although there were no human fatalities, this is not grounds for complacency; we need to knows why no hurricane force storm warnings were issued and why no pro-active State of Emergency was declared.

 

TECHNICAL STUFF FOR ‘NIT-PICKERS’; WHAT EXACTLY IS A ‘SUPER-STORM?”

The following information, which expands on that provided on previously in this report was sourced from the United States National Hurricane Centre. The internationally recognized Siffer-Simpson Scale underscores the fact that South Australian residents were the victims of a massive system failure that failed to protect them from a potentially lethal super-storm. For example, if an urgent evacuation had been required:

  • What would the public know about when and where to go, and how would those without transport be evacuated with the trams and trains shut down?

 

Adelaide Bureau of Meteorology and other meteorological experts across the nation, e.g. Defence Force meteorologists, university lecturers and the ‘talking-head-weather-experts’ employed by national television networks, all failed to warn the residents of South Australian that on Wednesday 28th 2016, the state would be pummeled by a dangerous  “super-storm” of Category 1 hurricane strength. To the best of my knowledge, no government agency provided specific details of the following potentially lethal dangers:

 

  1. Wind speed: 119 – 153 Km/h. [Wind-speeds of up to 140 km/hr were recorded]
  2. Very dangerous winds will produce some damage, even well-constructed frame homes could have damage to roof, shingles, (tiles)  vinyl siding and gutters.
  3. Large branches of trees will snap and shallow rooted trees may be toppled.
  4. Extensive damage to power lines and poles will result in power outages that could last a few to several days.

 [Source:  http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php ]

 

CHILDREN DELIBERATELY PLACED AT-RISK: “…damage to portable school buildings”:

To understand just how serious was the danger posed by ‘Hurricane Anon’ to school children in South Australia,  please consider again the following NOAA sourced information, especially the reference to damage to portable school buildings and the danger from falling trees and flying debris. This information further highlights the failure of politicians, public servants, defence force personnel and SAPOL to take steps to protect thousands of school students, some as young as five, from being exposed to the risk of serious injury or death. The following information was sourced from http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/pages/aboutsshs.php

 

Category One Hurricane:

  1. Some damage to building structures could occur, primarily to unanchored structures (such as school portables). 
  1. Some damage is likely to poorly constructed signs.
  2. Loose outdoor items will become projectiles, causing additional damage. Persons struck by windborne debris risk injury and possible death.
  3. Numerous large branches of healthy trees will snap.
  4. Some trees will be uprooted, especially where the ground is saturated.
  5. Many areas will experience power outages with some downed power poles.  

 

Hurricane Dot in 1959, Hurricane Iwa in 1982 and Hurricane Matthew on the US Atlantic seaboard in 2016 are examples of Category One hurricanes that either caused massive damage or have high death tolls despite their low ranking on the Siffer-Simpson Scale. [Hurricane Iwa was the 23rd storm and the 12th hurricane to hit Hawaii in 1982 and, despite its relatively low intensity, embedded super-cells or downbursts made it the most costly hurricane to ever hit Hawaii.

Any public inquiry needs to study Hurricanes Iwa, Dot and Matthew, [which has killed at least 19 people in the USA],  very carefully for these storms were Category 1 comparable to ‘Hurricane Anon’. Embedded ‘cyclones’ within Iwa caused similar damage to that experienced in the South Australian mid-northern regions. Had embedded cyclones struck when students were present, the death toll amongst school children could have been absolutely horrific.

 

Ones of the factors that need to be addressed is the cause of the systemic failure of the Australian Meteorology profession to issue public warnings about the dangers posed by ‘Hurricane Anon’. Did a narrow focus on technical definitions hinder government actions by masking the inherent danger, i.e. it was perceived and presented to politicians as a ‘storm’ rather than as a storm of hurricane intensity, which to all practical intents and purposes was exactly what the super-storm was. Lessons can be learnt from both the Home Insulation Program Inquiry and the English Parliament’s Privy Council Report on the Invasion of Iraq about professional advisors failing to adequately advice on risks.

 

LESSONS FROM THE HIP ROYAL COMMISSION: “…brief  Ministers on the inherent risks”.

Key recommendations were contained in Section 14 of Commissioner Ian Hanger’s report into the Home Insulation Program (HIP) disaster that now underscore the need for a royal commission with wide ranging “think outside the box” powers of inquiry into the ‘Hurricane Anon’ disaster. In order to further aid clarity and emphasis to the relevance of these recommendations I have added additional bullet-pointing to the recommendations below:

 

14.6.7 The APS ought to brief Ministers on the risks inherent in a recommended approach or advise on how the proposed approach might contain faults in the design or otherwise fail to work.

  • Such a concerted focus on assessing the negatives associated with a proposal is a core component of the modes of thinking promoted by Edward De Bono—he refers to this manner of thinking as ‘black hat’ thinking, and asserts that it should never be seen as an attempt to be obstructionist or argumentative, but instead should be seen as an opportunity to consider negative elements alongside the positives, and to make a decision informed by the balance of each.
  • As a practical measure, there should be a requirement to provide advice of this nature to Ministers at the same time as presenting a brief or proposal for a Minister’s consideration.
  • This could be done by including a section in the briefing template which requires the author to air risks relevant to the proposal (a ‘devil’s advocate’ section)—this would provide Ministers with an opportunity to make decisions fully informed about the implications and consequences thereof.
  • Officers must be supported to engage with personal risk when giving advice, rather than to remain complicit with a particular approach thought to be favoured by the Minister or a political adviser.
  • Senior officials must likewise satisfy themselves that advice concerning risks is accurate, independent, and comprehensive.
  • Additionally, advice on risk, whether delivered in a written submission or verbally, should not be pitched at such a high level that it is impossible for the Minister to discern real tangible risks therein.
  • Ministers and their advisers must not, by subtle suggestion or otherwise, dictate what advice they receive.

 

14.6.8   Advice must be multifaceted.

  • It must look at issues beyond the Department’s primary objective. For example, in the case of the HIP, advice on the economic impacts should have focused not only on the macro-economic stimulus impacts, but also on the likely impact on the industry itself in both the short and long term.
  • For example a relevant consideration should have been the fact that at the end of the HIP (had it been successful) there would have been a lack of employment for those involved.

 

14.6.9  As explained in Chapter 2 of the APSC Guide: The APS works within, and to implement, the elected government’s policies and outcomes.

  • Good advice from the APS is unbiased and objective. It is politically neutral but not naïve, and is developed and offered with an understanding of its implications and of the broader policy directions set by government.

 

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

  • Responsiveness demands a close and cooperative relationship with Ministers and their employees. The policy advisory process is an iterative one, which may involve frequent feedback between the APS and the Minister and his or her office.
  • Responsive implementation of the government’s policies and programmes (APS Values (f)) is achieved through a close and cooperative relationship with Ministers and their employees. Ministers may make decisions, and issue policy guidelines with which decisions made by APS employees must comply.

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

 

In 14.7 of his report, Commission Hanger addressed the issue of Risk and his comments should be given careful consideration by any inquiry tasked with looking at the failure of both the Weatherill Government and the Turnbull government to issue a hurricane alert to South Australian residents:

 

14.7.1 The identification and management of risks under the HIP was serious deficient.

  • The risk of death and injury to installers, amongst the most serious of all the risks that might eventuate, was identified in working groups, and in the risk identification process, but not recorded in the Risk Register and did not appear there until a death had occurred.
  • This is the polar opposite of how risk management is supposed to work.

 

14.7.3.2  RISK CANNOT BE ABROGATED  [Capitals and underlining used  for added emphasis.]

  • Government must recognize that as much as it might seek to do so, risk cannot be abrogated.
  • The responsibility of Government is to care for its citizens and;
  • To exercise care and diligence to do everything reasonable to ensure that its citizens are not placed in danger by its actions, particularly risk of death and serious injury.

 

14.7.3.2.1  The Australian government should not seek to abrogate responsibility for identified risk.  [Underlining used  for added emphasis.]

  • If another party (for example a State or Territory Government) is identified as being able to mitigate an identified risk, this does not remove the Department’s responsibility to take the necessary steps to manage the risk and to ensure that others are doing the same.
  • The Australian government should engage with the identified risk manager to ensure the adequacy of those arrangements for the new circumstance, and consider whether there are additional steps that it could take to complement that action.

 

Commissioner Hanger’s finding in 14.7.3.2 and 14.7.3.2.1, make it quite clear that a key responsibility of both the Federal and SA Governments was a duty of care to South Australian residents to inform them that they were about to face life-threatening danger posed by an approaching super-storm of hurricane force intensity In addition, efforts should have been made to use RAAF or other aircraft assets to ‘hurricane hunt’ the approaching storm to ascertain what unseen dangers may have been hidden within the storm so that advice about specific safety measures could be provided to residents, e.g. the sand-bagging of homes, or even the need to evacuate homes if it was deemed necessary to do so.

The failure of either the Weatherill Government or the Turnbull Government to issue an informative, plain-language alert are, in Law, matters of fact that are totally inconsistent with Commissioner Hanger’s definitive statement that “The responsibility of Government is to care for its citizens and ensure that that its citizens are not placed in danger by its actions, particularly risk of death and serious injury.Other relevant points raised by Commissioner Hanger that an Inquiry should consider include the following:

 

14.11.4 “…that much of the work of the officials in DEWHA was directed at process”

  • It is apparent to me from much the documents produced to the Commission by the
  • Commonwealth of Australia (Commonwealth) that much of the work of the officials in DEWHA in particular was directed at process, and process which came at the expense of substance.
  • Endless emails were exchanged, and meetings and committees were convened.
  • Very many officials (probably too many) attended the meetings with industry.
  • Yet no-one, despite this, was able to see that the Risk register had omitted an important risk, or that Mr. Peter Ruz’s warning had not come to the attention of the relevant people and had not been acted upon or given any serious consideration.

 

Clearly evident in the above comments from 14.11.4 is the problem of experts focusing upon “Process” and in do so, losing sight of their purpose or role in performing those functions. For meteorologists, “process” dictated that any storm, no matter how violent, is not a “hurricane” unless it was formed in the tropics. This definition apparently over-rode the “Function” of meteorologists to provide information, in an understandable form, that would alert the public to any dangers that a storm of hurricane force intensity may present to life and/or property.

 

“The failure to heed the warning of Mr. Peter Ruz.” This may be a relevant precedent to consider as I do not believe that every one of the meteorologists in  Australia who was aware of just how potentially dangerous ‘Hurricane Anon’ could be, decided to keep silent and not raise concerns with their superiors. Such a scenario is inconceivable! The issue of bureaucratic pecking order, i.e. persons of higher rank or authority, actively hindering or blocking the flow of ‘Need to know’ information to Ministers or Parliament is considered in the July 6th 2016 Report of the Privy Council to the English Parliament. Commonly known as ‘The Chilcot Report’, this report provides invaluable insight into why warnings about the dangers posed by the super-storm that hit South Australia on September 28th may not have been provided to the responsible Ministers in both the Weatherill government and the Turnbull Government until it was too late, and therefore politically too sensitive, to issue any informative public alerts. This storm could easily have injured or killed many people, and yet at no time was that fact explicitly stated and the question as to why this was so must be addressed in a public inquiry.

THE CHILCOT REPORT – OOPS! WE MADE A MISTAKE:

The executive summary of the Chilcot Report contains matters of fact concerning the unsanctioned invasion of Iraq in March 2003 that may be useful in understanding why timely, informative warnings about the approaching super-storm were not issued to the public.

 

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

 

  • Paragraph 574: The evidence in Section 4.4 shows that, after the invasion, the UK Government, including the intelligence community, was reluctant to admit, and to recognise publicly, the mounting evidence that there had been failings in the UK’s pre-conflict collection, validation, analysis and presentation of intelligence on Iraq’s WMD.
  • Paragraph 576: Almost immediately after the start of the invasion, UK Ministers and officials sought to lower public expectations of immediate or significant finds of WMD in Iraq.
  • Paragraph 577: The lack of evidence to support pre-conflict claims about Iraq’s WMD challenged the credibility of the Government and the intelligence community, and the legitimacy of the war.
  • Paragraph 578: The Government and the intelligence community were both concerned about the consequences of the presentational aspects of their pre-war assessments being discredited.
  • Paragraph 858: Although the UK expected to be involved in Iraq for a lengthy period after the conflict, the Government was unprepared for the role in which the UK found itself from April 2003. Much of what went wrong stemmed from that lack of preparation.
  • Paragraph 859: In any undertaking of this kind, certain fundamental elements are of vital importance:
  • the best possible appreciation of the theatre of operations, including the political, cultural and ethnic background, and the state of society, the economy and infrastructure;
  • a hard-headed assessment of risks;
  • Paragraph 863: Ground truth is vital. Over-optimistic assessments lead to bad decisions. Senior decision-makers – Ministers, Chiefs of Staff, senior officials – must have a flow of accurate and frank reporting.

 

There are clear parallels between the issues raised in this report,  the issues raised in the extracts from the Commissioner Ian Hanger’s report and the Chilcot Report. These include:

  1. Government policy making based upon perceptions and beliefs rather than facts;
  2. Poor flow of ‘on-the-ground’ empirical information, especially if it was evidence or facts that contradicted the political intentions, goals or beliefs of the Government;
  3. Rejection of empirical evidence if it contradicted the status quo or beliefs of those responsible for passing the information higher up the organizational chain.
  4. This rejection of the facts or credible information resulting in a serious lack of lack of preparedness for the actual reality of the situation;
  5. Attempts by those responsible for the incorrect decisions to either ignore or actively cover-up mistakes and/or the consequences of theses errors of judgement.

 

Many public statements have already issued by vested interests entities, e.g. Federal and South Australian politicians, government advisors and ‘independent’ agencies such as the Australian Energy Market Operator. In addition, representatives of energy producer organizations that have billions of dollars-worth of vested interest in ensuring favourable vested-interest outcomes from the various inquiries into the damage caused by the super-storm have also issued statements that may not be in the public interest if NOAA’s statements about CO2 levels and global warming risks are true. Consequently, no statements or ‘findings’ by any of these entities can be deemed to be impartial.

 

The High Court’s decision in Minister for Immigration & Cultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] 209 CLR 597, at 53 that “if there is no jurisdiction for a determination, in law, is no decision at all”. Only a judicial inquiry or a Royal Commission can issue findings of fact, a legal point that is clearly stated in ASIV v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17 at 141 and 143. At 141, the High Court ruled “…that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred.” In paragraph 143, the Court ruled that “The proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory authority relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require that regulatory agency to make some final judgement about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. Deciding the facts of a case is a court’s task, not a task for a regulatory authority.”

 

The failure of the federal APS to provide empirical, impartial information was a major factor in the HIP disaster and the possibility that this has also occurred with the various disasters or problems caused by ‘Hurricane Anon’ is a potential issue that cannot be ignored given the clearly identifiable  vested interests of so many of the parties involved. Who knew that the “storm” approaching South Australia was a dangerous storm of hurricane force intensity and what were the ‘Best Endeavours’ of these people reduce risks to the public is a critical issue to consider. However, the ‘big picture’ has substantial implications for the even more substantial issue of who knew about the NOAA reports, some of which were issued in June 2016, that revealed that CO2 greenhouse emission levels were at levels not experienced in 3 million years and were rising at a rate that was 100 times greater than the long-term overage of 800,000 years? The question as to whether or not CO2 levels triggered the development of this storm is extremely complex and no politician, public servant or vested-interest entity is capable of, or has the jurisdiction, to make and issue any findings in regard to this critical issue.

Energy industry entities have billions of dollars invested in fossil fuel generation of electricity and the NOAA report may be the environmental equivalent of the 1960s medical reports that smoking was a major case of many health problems including cancer. The NOAA Report is therefore evidence that these entities do not want to hear. The refusal to accept unpleasant truths can also be likened to the refusal of the US, British and Australian Governments to accept reports that Iraq did NOT have weapons of mass destruction, i.e. regardless of the facts, it was simply unacceptable. It is possible that unless fossil-fuel usage is totally abandoned as a major source of electricity generation, that the current levels of greenhouse gases will rise to unstoppable levels of global warning that will trigger irreversible global warning with rapid rises in sea levels and climate changes that include hurricanes in areas that rarely, if ever, are affected by such storms.

 

“UNREALISTIC”: Prime Minister Turnbull’s “unrealistic” statements re renewal energy.

This logic also apply to the claim made by Prime Minister Turnbull that the Labour states were applying “unrealistic” targets to renewable energy. If Mr. Turnbull’s statement is correct, then the Weatherill Government has been pursuing “unrealistic” goals with renewable energy targets and was therefore negligent in placing the state’s power supply system at risk. However,  if the goals are realistic, (or even too low), then Prime Minister Turnbull may have engaged in  ‘political grandstanding’ during this natural disaster instead of ensuring that Commonwealth was meeting its obligations in assisting with disaster recovery efforts.

 

ASYNCHRONOUS SUPPLY: Both the problems associated with asynchronous power supply systems and the potential destruction of power lines by hurricanes were well-known and therefore the likelihood that a severe storm of hurricane force could cause a catastrophic failure was foreseeable. This foreseeability therefore raises a number of questions concerning the failure of federal government to take preventative measures, both engineering and administrative, to minimize or totally eliminate the possibility of such a disaster:

 

  1. What preventative engineering measures could have been put in place to prevent a catastrophic failure of a state or territory power grid, or the national power grid?
  2. What preventative administrative measures could have been put in place to prevent a catastrophic failure of a state or territory power grid, or the national power grid?
  3. Of the engineering and administrative preventative measured that could have been implemented by the Federal Government, what measures were not in place?
  4. If preventative engineering or administrative measures that could have prevented catastrophic failure of the power supply network were not in place, why was this so?
  5. If measures that could have prevented the catastrophic failure of the power supply network were in place, were they implemented?
  6. If so, why did they fail to prevent the catastrophic failure that occurred whilst South Australia was being hammered by a super-storm of Category 1 hurricane intensity?
  7. If preventative engineering or administrative measures that could have prevented catastrophic failure were not implemented, why was this so?

 

Both Prime Minister Turnbull and the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne, need to explain why the nation’s defence forces responded to the approaching super-storm by allegedly moving aircraft out of harm’s way, i.e. by allegedly aircraft at the Edinburgh RAAF base interstate. If this was the case, then by acts of omission, the Australian Defence Force failed to assist the people of South Australia to prepare for the foresee damaging impact that a super-storm of  hurricane intensity could cause. The primary function of the ADF is to defend and protect Australians from harm, whatever the cause, and by not raising public concerns about the storm’s potential strength, the ADF failed to adequately perform its primary function. Why was this so?

 

HURRICANES DO NOT PLAY POLITICS WITH POLITICIANS:

Just as hurricanes do not ‘play politics with politicians’, politicians should not play politics with hurricanes. Regardless of the ideological beliefs of politicians and their advisors, when a severe storm of potentially hurricane force intensity approaches Australian territory, the lessons to be learnt from Cyclone Tracy, Hurricane Katrina is that objective risk assessment is required if fatalities are to be minimized and damage from winds and floods are to be minimized. Public risk assessment requires facts and that requires real-time research resources.

 

BREAK POINTS: Early warning is only the first step in pro-active disaster management.

NOAA uses “Break Points”, i.e. dozens of coastal meteorological stations  which, upon detecting a “severe storm” of hurricane force, inform NOAA which then issues an alert that sets in motion a series pre-planned responses to the perceived threat posed by the approaching hurricane. To plagiarize Commissioner Hanger, “It is a shame that those entrusted with the implementation of the hurricane warnings in Australia did not adhere to these principles.”

 

Would Jay Weatherill have kept schools open if he had been officially apprised of the potentially life threatening risks to children that was posed by the hurricane force storm that was battering the state? Would parents and teachers have ignored the open-the-schools-no-matter-what-the-circumstances-decision if they too were aware that the “severe storm” battering the state was in reality an extremely dangerous storm hurricane force intensity? Jay Weatherill was aware that at least 22 transmission line towers had been “ripped out of the ground”,  so why didn’t he realize that the “severe storm” was in point of fact a very dangerous storm that could endanger the lives of people, especially young children?

Did Premier Weatherill request a briefing on the potential threat to life posed by the super-storm, or did his decision to open schools indicate a willingness to ignore risks to the public? As Commissioner Hanger pointed out in the HIP Report, governments cannot abrogate public risk.

 

14.7.3.2  RISK CANNOT BE ABROGATED : Government must recognize that as much as it might seek to do so, risk cannot be abrogated.

If Jay Weatherill ignored the public dangers posed by the  super-storm in order to preserve his job as the Premier of South Australia, then he should face criminal charges for placing his career ahead of the welfare and safety of 1.7 million South Australians. In the High Court’s 1986 Boughey decision, the Court ruled that Dr. Boughey “ought to have known” that he was placing a life in danger and held him accountable for strangling a woman to death. No politician, federal or state, should play Russian roulette with the lives of the people that they represent. The decision to place the lives of school children in peril by not ordering the closure of schools until the dangerous storm had cleared the state was incredibly risky and there must be some form of public accountability for all of the people involved in that critical decision.

 

CRITICAL DECISIONS REQUIRE CRITICAL INFORMATION:

It is a basic management principle that good decisions require good information. When the lives of 1.7 million people are placed in unavoidable danger, it is axiomatic that every effort is made to ensure that critical decisions are based upon the most relevant and credible information that can be obtained. Satellites and maritime reports do provide some information, but when the population of a state is at risk, decisions should be based on empirical facts, not assumptions.

 

The RAAF may have played a far more pro-active role in mitigating the scope of the disaster but did not do so. Was this because the Turnbull Government, following in the steps of every previous federal government since 1946, has failed to adequately equip the RAAF with ‘hurricane hunter’ strengthened aircraft and skilled meteorological staff who could have flown  into the approaching storm and obtained empirical data that would have enabled  meteorologists to more accurately assess the dangers and provide informed advice to both the federal and state governments about the dangers posed by the approaching storm threat?

 

HURRICANE HUNTER RESOURCES:

In the Unites States, the US Air Force and NOAA use Orion and Hercules aircraft on “hurricane hunter” missions These aircraft which are in the RAAF aircraft inventory, have proved to be extremely safe and reliable aircraft, even under the most extreme and dangerous of conditions.  This was evidenced by NOAA 42, an Orion “hurricane hunter” aircraft that suffered an engine failure whilst flying into a category 4 hurricane. Despite the loss of an engine, NOAA 42 was able to fly into and out of the hurricane eye-wall and return safely to base.

 

From an aircraft resource perspective, Australia had the capability to ‘hurricane hunt’ the super-storm that hit South Australia on September 28th but this vital storm research did not apparently occur and the question is yet again, why was this so?

 

In making the above points, I would point out that if the community was aware that the “severe storm” was in fact a effectively a hurricane with embedded “cyclones”, a far higher state of preparedness would have been in place and critical emergency infrastructure such as the emergency generators at Flinders Medical Centre and Port Lincoln may have been more rigorously tested to ensure their availability if required. Because there was no adequate warning, full-load testing of back-up generator systems may have been less than optimal.

 

Due to the failure to pro-actively issue an appropriate (hurricane force) storm warnings and to declare a state of emergency, businesses could not prepare for the super-storm or anticipate the easily foreseeable crippling loss of power. As a direct consequence of these omissions, many businesses suffered substantial, avoidable financial losses, e.g. loss of frozen food could have been prevented by hiring an emergency generator. Many households, including my own, were left in the dark and forced to rely on candle power instead of torches. At least one home was destroyed when a candle ignited curtains. Again, this was a foreseeable risk that could have been prevented if the public had been properly informed that the forecast “storm” was in fact a ‘defacto-hurricane’ that could cause extended blackouts. Instead, 1.7 million people were literally ‘left in the dark’.  Why was this so?

 

  1. Widespread flooding is also a feature of super-storms of hurricane force intensity and many local councils, SES teams, local disaster coordinators and home owners may have been more proactive in taking anti-flood measures such as the installation of sandbag barriers, or have ploughed contour banks, well before crisis situation flooding occurred.
  2. Prevention is better than cure: fewer people may have driven into flooded creeks or canoed in flood rapids if the real risks were both known and perhaps more importantly, state of emergency laws, made such actions unlawful and thus empowered police or emergency workers to actively prevent such dangerous conduct.

 

How would a Royal Australian Navy vessel, confronted with a hurricane, deal with that danger. Would the captain and crew blithely attempt to sail through that tempest without first ensuring that ALL SYSTEMS, both primary and back-up, were fully functional? The answer to that rhetorical question is that if forced to sail through such tempestuous conditions, every system would be thoroughly tested long before the storm arrived.

  1. It’s Not My Job Syndrome: Was this why the RAAF reportedly protected aircraft by redeploying them to a safer area but then failed its obligation to the people of South Australia by not issuing a timely alert that a very dangerous storm was approaching?
  2. Does Australia have a national equivalent of NOAA, i.e. an organization tasked with issuing super-storm/hurricane warnings? If so, why didn’t this organization issue a timely public warning. If no equivalent of NOAA exists, why is this so?

 

MAGGIE THE ION LADY: John Howard and South Australia’s non-existent back-up systems.

A timely warning of the approaching super-storm/hurricane would have enabled emergency back-up generator systems to be tested and repaired or replaced if found to be non-functional. However, the question arises as to what could be done to ensure emergency power supplies if the state’s supply grid failed and back-up systems are non-operational? A spare back-up generator could be brought in and placed on stand-by but this assumes that the financial resources needed to finance these back-up systems exist. Emergency resource back-up in depth is technically possible, e.g. a company that locally manufactures powerful emergency generators is located at Dudley Park, so the potential sourcing of such back-up resources is not a problem. What is a massive barrier to doing so is the very substantial cost of purchasing, maintaining and deploying these generators. Given the parlous state of the South Australian budget, this is not possible and yet, if some 20 years ago the Howard Government had not violated sections 171 and 172 of the South Australian criminal code, the financial resources required to maintain very substantial emergency back-up systems, including personnel, may have been available. More details of the alleged criminal conduct are contained in Appendix 2 of this report but are raised here to emphasize the point that a wide-ranging inquiry is required if all factors that are significant, credible and relevant are to be considered.

 

PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS: a totally wasted resource at a very critical time.

For more than two hours after the electricity grid failure, tens of thousands of photovoltaic panels continued to generate electricity; however, not one milli-watt was available to home and business owners or to hospitals and government departments that had these resources.

 

  1. Was the technical inability of home owners and businesses to access solar energy made impossible because of Invested interest views that had resulted in political decisions that benefited commercial electricity producers and the energy supply corporations, i.e. coal and gas suppliers who supply fossil fuels to power companies?
  2. Redirection, via inverters to a 12 volt battery backup lighting system is possible. However, this relatively inexpensive capability is not part of a standard installation and the question for consideration is yet again, why is this so?

 

Commissioner Ian Hanger’s finding in 14.6.7 of his report contained a number of perceptive  recommendations that are precedents for any inquiry into the  ‘Hurricane Anon’ fiasco.

  1. “Officers must be supported to engage with personal risk when giving advice, rather than to remain complicit with a particular approach thought to be favoured by the Minister or a political adviser. Senior officials must likewise satisfy themselves that advice concerning risks is accurate, independent, and comprehensive. Additionally, advice on risk, whether delivered in a written submission or verbally, should not be pitched at such a high level that it is impossible for the Minister to discern real tangible risks ther Ministers and their advisers must not, by subtle suggestion or otherwise, dictate what advice they receive.”
  2. “Such a concerted focus on assessing the negatives associated with a proposal is a core component of the modes of thinking promoted by Edward De Bono—he refers to this manner of thinking as ‘black hat’ thinking, and asserts that it should never be seen as an attempt to be obstructionist or argumentative, but instead should be seen as an opportunity to consider negative elements alongside the positives, and to make a decision informed by the balance of each.

 

When it comes all possible uses of solar panels, was comprehensive advice given?

Was advice about the dangers posed by the approaching super-storm, accurate, comprehensive and presented in an understandable manner and were all foreseeable negative issues thoroughly examined and considered, e.g. the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the electrical grid?  Did this happen or were public servants and political advisors telling the Premier and the Prime Minister  only telling them what they wanted to hear?

 

That Commissioner Hanger found it necessary to recommend reading the works of Edward De Bono  about [lateral] ‘black hat’  thinking implies that it is possible that there is a systemic problem with public servants who may lack vision when giving advice and are thus limiting the range of options that they need to consider when advising Ministers. Was a lack of vision one of the reasons why (12 volt DC) solar power was not available to photovoltaic system owners during the power failure that occurred on 28th September. That this was not a feature of these systems implies a lack of ‘black hat’ thinking when considering the full range of potential uses of  photovoltaic systems when the design specifications were first determined? With CO2 levels now exceeding 400ppm and not expected to drop below this level for decades, no matter how much Ministers and their advisors may not wish to hear the truths implicit in that fact, they need to be told the negative consequences of continued reliance upon fossil fuels for electricity generation and all other options, No matter how ideologically or commercially unacceptable, and unwanted advice to Ministers may be, the advice of public servants must be “…accurate, independent, comprehensive….balanced” if disastrous political decisions that may have lethal consequences are to be avoided.

There is a very possibility that super-storms like ‘Hurricane Anon’, with their embedded swarms of cyclones, may now rapidly  become far  more frequent due to the high levels of CO 2 in the atmosphere. Since a common problem with hurricane force storms is the destruction of power lines, black-outs may become a far more frequent occurrence and therefore optimizing ways to utilize photovoltaic energy during these power outages is an issue that must be addressed. Even 12 volt DC emergency lighting using solar energy is far better than reliance on primitive, ‘Dark Ages’  old technology, i.e. candles, which are a very dangerous lighting system.

 

SMOKING IS A HEALTH HAZARD; SO IS BURNING FOSSIL FUELS:

Despite knowing for decades that smoking caused a broad range of potentially fatal health hazards  such as Cancer, for decades, tobacco companies actively denied any knowledge of the health risks caused by smoking. In the wake of ‘Hurricane Anon’, vested-interest energy producers who wish to protect the billions of dollars invested in fossil-fuel systems may have actively supported Prime Minister Turnbull’s unsubstantiated environmental claim that renewable energy goals are “unrealistic” in order to protect long-term profitability. It may well be that an impartial judicial assessment of the implications of atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of 400 ppm may result in a finding that the use of fossil fuels as a power needs to be prohibited as a matter of the utmost urgency. Such an impartial endorsement would have serious financial implications for the fossil fuel powered electricity producers, whilst opening the door to substantial growth and development in the renewable energy generation industry.

 

PEOPLE DIE WHEN POLITICIANS GET IT WRONG:

John Howard’s belief that Iraq was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction has been a significant precipitating factor in the deaths of approximately 250,000 people. The Rudd Government’s HIP program claimed 4 lives whilst in South Australia, the belief of Mike Rann and Jay Weatherill that run-away trucks on the South-Eastern Freeway were not an urgent safety issue resulted in the deaths of John Posnakidis, James Venning, Jacqui Quinn and Tom Spiess. Adherence to Form rather than Function by Families SA child care workers resulted in the deaths of 4-month-old Ebony Payne and 4-year-old Chloe Valentine. On a larger scale, the failure of South Australian politicians to pay heed to a 1938 court decision that ruled that asbestos was a health hazard may be the primary underlying reason why so many South Australians are dead, dying, or will die, from an asbestos related disease. In November 2005, Nick Xenophon MLC stated on Radio 891 that “On a pro-rata basis, South Australia is the asbestos capital of the world.”

 

With SA Health estimating that as many as 20,000 may be dead before the asbestos epidemic is over, the failure of politicians to delay banning ban the use of asbestos until 2003, i.e. 65 years after the 1938 court decision is reprehensible.

The lesson to be learnt from the “Devil’s Dust” deaths and the other examples mentioned in the preceding paragraphs is very simple; when politicians get it wrong, people can die.

 

Both the Weatherill Government and the Turnbull Government may have been very fortunate that the full force of ‘Hurricane Anon’ did not make a direct hit on Adelaide. Totally unprepared for what was to come, it was business as usual for most South Australians as the danger moved closer. Consider again the risks implicit in the previously mentioned Siffer-Simpson definition of hurricane force winds. Which of these statements does not indicate a serious risk to the public and  by extension, a taxpayer-funded legal liability when politicians and bureaucrats stuff-up?

 

  1. Damaging winds are expected; Sustained winds [of] 119-153 km/hr;
  2. Some damage to building structures could occur…such as school portables; 
  3. Loose outdoor items will become projectiles, causing additional damage;
  4. Persons struck by windborne debris risk injury and possible death.

 

A ‘CLAYTON’S HURRICANE ALERT: WHY WAS IT NECESSARY?

On the 29th September, I warned the Assistant Principal of the school where I was relief teaching, that winds of hurricane force were forecast and that the force of the wind should be carefully monitored to ensure that students were safe when outside of classrooms.

  1. Given the damage already inflicted and wind speeds of up to 150 km/hr being forecast on ABC radio 891, why did Jay Weatherill and the Education Minister keep schools open when they “ought to have known” that weather conditions were extremely dangerous?
  2. Why also did SAPOL, the SES, and even the Federal Minister of Education, not advise against playing Russian roulette with the lives of children?
  3. In the absence of an official hurricane force winds alert, was leaving the go-to-school decision up to parents a reckless act of criminal negligence by an act of omission?
  4. Why was the decision to open or close schools left to school principals who had not been briefed  about the danger to life both from flying objects and from the destruction of classrooms by a violent storm that had reduced transmission towers to scrap metal?

 

From my own perspective, why was I issuing a warning about winds of hurricane force intensity to an Assistant Principal instead of the Adelaide Weather Bureau issuing this warning via the Education Minister? Surely, the answer to that question is also a matter for a judicial inquiry?

 

HISTORY WILL BE KIND TO ME: (Winston Churchill)

“History will be kind to me because I intend to write it” said Winston Churchill. In a similar manner, even as the wind battered my home and drenching rain swamped my garden, whilst my laptops had battery power, I typed up my thoughts on issues related to ‘Hurricane Anon.’ The text of the two appendix documents are my ‘from-the-battlefield’ views as a very irate ‘Hurricane Anon’ survivor.  [I use that word in its literal sense.] These documents were in part written as a personal history and also as a public record to be posted in my WordPress journal. However, perhaps most importantly of all, should I not survive a future not-a-hurricane hurricane that hits South Australia, these thoughts and this Emcott Report will leave a written public record of my strongly-held belief that the politicians, public servants and senior police officers who fail to provide adequate warning of hurricane strength storms need to be held fully accountable for any harm caused. Those who abuse public office and chose to play Russian roulette with the lives of South Australians need to held fully accountable for such crimes. Accountability should not be at the polls, but in a court of law for as an English Royal Commission determined in 1839, ‘it is the placing of life in peril that constitutes the crime’.

 

Whatever Jay Weatherill and Malcolm Turnbull provided to the people of South Australia when ‘Hurricane Anon’ battered our homes, it most definitely was not responsible leadership. What they provided was irresponsible and flagrantly stupid. Why they did what they did is in the first instance a matter for a public inquiry. Beyond that, it may eventually prove to be a matter for the courts. Whilst no-one died, there were far too many instances of ‘near-misses’ that could have had fatal consequences. Great economic harm was also caused that could have been mitigated or totally avoided, e.g. the lost of perishable foods by supermarkets and cold stores and the failure to give market gardeners the time needed to create low but effective  contour-ploughed-flood-levies that might have prevented flooding on some properties and therefore those who suffered significant financial losses should be compensated. Not only does justice require this; it may be a powerful incentive for ensuring that when the next hurricane roars into South Australia, the public will not have their lives placed at-risk by those who believe that the ‘mushroom-tunnel-syndrome’ is the best response.

 

As Commission Hanger so aptly stated, “The Australian government should not seek to abrogate responsibility for identified risk.  If another party (for example a State or Territory Government) is identified as being able to mitigate an identified risk, this does not remove the Department’s responsibility to take the necessary steps to manage the risk and to ensure that others are doing the same.” Just as a rose by any other name is still a rose, a hurricane by any other name is still a hurricane. We the people, have a right to know when an identified risk such as a hurricane force ‘storm’ may place our lives are in danger. Those who seek to downplay or ignore such dangers need to be held fully accountable for their decisions and the flow-on consequences.

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

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

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

[NOTE The URL short cut for this posting is:  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-F6   ]

Food for though:

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

My email to Senator Lambi

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

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

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

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

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

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

ISLAMIC STATE PRESS RELEASE TODAY: WE LIVE IN DANGEROUS TIMES THANKS TO BUSH 2ND, BLAIR & HOWARD.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-06/is-calls-for-attacks-in-australia-dismissed-as-propaganda/7819774

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

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

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

Ronald Medlicott

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

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

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

[Note: the short link URL for this page is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-ES  ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO DECISION AT ALL:

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

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

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

Systemic Fraud.

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

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

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

7-1-16 Redacted Centrelink response

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

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

20-10-11

100,000 unconstitutionally have dole cut off.

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

Any guesses why this may be so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Note: The short link URL for this posting is http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-D3   ]

Census debacle

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

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

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

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

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

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

  5. Speedtest 5Speedtest 222

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Campbell: For answering a call?

 Senator CAMERON: Yes, the KPI ones.

 Ms Campbell: On average, the longest?

 Senator CAMERON: Yes. Is it welfare?

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

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

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

 Senator Payne: Thank you.

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

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

 Mr Tidswell: Yes, Senator.

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

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

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

[My comment:]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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