A letter to all the other senators about the Crime against Humanity.

(The postings in this Blog are a memorial to the more than 3 million Aussie Battlers have been Breached. It is especially a memorial to the (estimated) 5,000+ Aussie Battlers who did not survive being breached. Please, help to spread the word about this humanitarian disaster by using the “Share with a friend “link in the right hand column.)

Dear Senator

The Australian Crime Commission is being given genteel hints that it should investigate the maladministration, fraud, corruption and blatant misuse of Parliamentary Privilege that has been, and still is being used to conceal from the public, the murderous death toll caused by what used to be known as “Breaching”.

1. FY 2000-01: 346,078 breaches. Like it or lump it, there is no getting around the fact that there was no legitimate way that this enormous breaching total, and the quarter of a million breaches in FY 2001-02, could only have been achieved purely through legitimate means.

2. The 84% rate at which breaches were overturned on appeal is one example of hard evidence of the staggering rate at which welfare recipients were defrauded of legitimate entitlements.

3. Other hard evidence is held by some of the Centrelink staff who knew that the breaching quotas that they were being pressured to meet were “wrong” and so they kept copies of emails, managerial directives and minutes of meetings and/or recorded details in personal diaries.

4. For some of the stressed out or mentally depressed people who were breached, the shock of being breached was too much. Strokes, heart attacks and suicides all contributed to a mounting death toll.

5. The almost daily death toll from breaching was not considered a problem by the politicians and senior welfare bureaucrats because these deaths, recorded as “Post-Breaching Terminal Outcomes” (PBTOs) were never included in official reports; a scurrilous practice that had been going on for decades in accordance with a long standing “government protocol” that I personal regard as a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice.

6. I do knot know whether or not these politicians and bureaucrats were aware that “A reckless disregard for human life that results in the death of a person” is a crime in every state and territory in Australia. In South Australia these deaths can be reclassified as Felony Murders whilst in Victoria they can be reclassified as Manslaughter by Criminal Negligence.

7. Pressure from the Independent Pearce Inquiry Report and mounting pressure from the community welfare sector made it clear that the “savings” achieved by the massive breaching toll could not be sustained and so other options were considered.

8. A sociopath with a golden gift of the gab somehow persuaded John Howard and his cabinet ministers that substantially reducing the breaching quotas whilst doubling the breaching penalty was the best option.

9. It is a matter of public record that the Howard Government actually tried, unsuccessfully, to implement this option. At no point during the debate was Federal Parliament informed about the ongoing “problem” of “Post-Breaching Terminal Outcomes” and the huge cumulative total number of deaths since the introduction of breaching legislation.

10. Whether or not Liberal and National back benchers were informed of these deaths is unknown but when they voted in support of this legislation, they were voting for a deliberate Act of State Terrorism.

11. If you were one of the politicians who voted in support of that legislation, you can sue me for Defamation if you like. Before you do, you need to keep in mind that Truth is not only a valid defense, in Australian courts, it is the only defense and once a court was given the PBTO statistics, your case would be shot down in double quick time!

12. In November 2005 the Legal Constitution Affairs Committee and the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee both received almost identical submissions which provided details of the maladministration and corruption that was deeply embedded in the welfare system.

  1. “As elected officials holding public office, Parliamentarians are expected to act with integrity in accordance with the public trust placed in them.”

1) Page 12, Auditor-General Report No.3 2009-10. Audit Report – Administration of Parliamentarians’ Entitlements by the Department of Finance and Regulation. (a.k.a. the “Perksgate” Report)

14. If either of those two committees had acted with the integrity that the Auditor-General was referring too in the above quote, it is highly probably that the “Roofgate” fiasco would never have occurred be cause public outrage at the level of maladministration and corruption in the defrauding welfare recipients of their legitimate entitlement would have forced sweeping changes in Due Diligence practices across every government department.

15. “Roofgate” was an inevitable downstream consequence of these two committees failing to take action when action was required. Instead of exposing the corruption, both committees took swift action to bury the evidence contained in these two reports.

16. The Legal Constitution Affairs Committee secretly classified submission 287 as confidential and backed this up with a Parliamentary Privilege suppression order that prohibited me from copying and distributing the submission and other documents relating to this criminal activity.

17. The Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee was unaware of this confidential classification, perhaps because its copy of submission 287 had a different title. Instead, using a common Howard Government practice, the truth was thrown overboard, i.e. the committee dumped the submission. When called upon to account for this action, the committee falsely claimed that the submission was “irrelevant”.

18. How bad legislation that deprived people of their civic, legal and constitutional rights and made them so exceedingly vulnerable to exploitation that thousands had died can be considered to “irrelevant” is totally beyond.

19. In the short term, the Work Choices legislation proved to so exploitive that even the prime Minister, John Howard was dumped by the angry voters his own blue ribbon electorate.

20. In the longer term, as mentioned previously, another fatal fiasco finally occurred.

21. It is manifestly obvious that Nick Champion had absolutely no idea as to what where the issues that are such concern to me. Had he fully appreciated my concerns, it is highly unlikely that he would have made the Compliance Failures data available to me.

22. There are two sides to every story and it is quite clear that no one in Federal Parliament or the Departments of Employments and FaCS has the slightest awareness of how that data is hard evidence against the Crown.

23. For starters, it is quite clear that the bureaucrats who manage the welfare support departments are not “Fit and Proper Persons” for this task.

24. They would make great banking or accounting administrations, but the Compliance “Failures” data makes it quite clear that they are square pegs in round holes.

25. “The guidelines are inflexible. They are set in concrete”. That oxymoron was made by Regina Choi, DEETYA’s regional job club co-ordinator at a meeting of job club leaders in Adelaide in early 1996.

26. Ms Choi was passing on to these contracted job club managers, the irate displeasure expressed by DEETYA’s senior management over the fact that some of the job club managers had been exercising such totally unacceptable practices as tolerance, compassion, understanding and flexibility when dealing with their job club clients.

27. The fact that this approach had made the job club program one the most successful of the Labor Government’s ‘Working Nation’ programs, was totally irrelevant. DEETYA management were adamant that compliance with the rules was far more important than compassionately meeting the needs of welfare clients that DEETYA existed to serve.

28. What the Compliance failures data makes quite clear is that the Rules and Regulations Mindset of the DEETYA managers in 1996 is alive and flourishing today. That is one reason why I say that the current management teams are not Fit and Proper Persons for the job.

29. Another reason why they are not Fit and Proper Persons is the fact that the data presented in the Compliance Failure reports is seriously biased and lacking in critical data that both parliament and the general public need to know about.

30. The most glaring omission is the failure to provide the Human Impact Statement that details the real world consequence of the practice that used to be known as Breaching but is now know under the assumed name of “Compliance Measures”.

31. Totally lacking every year for decades are the Human Impact Statement about the Post Breaching Terminal Outcomes.

32. Totally lacking every year for decades are the Human Impact details about the non-fatal consequences of breaching.

33. If you want to know about the “Survivor Sex” consequences of breaching, you won’t find it in any of Centrelink’s annual reports. You have to read it in a Salvation Army report.

34. If you want to know about the long term consequences of “Survivor Sex”, i.e. AIDS and other sexually acquired diseases, you have to contact the victims because Centrelink does not have the resources to evaluate this downstream consequence of breaching.

35. If you want to know about the teenage mum forced out of her accommodation and out onto the street to live with her months old child, you have to watch current affairs reports on TV.

36. If you want to know about the 12,000 Adelaide households that went through a winter with no electricity, no cooking facilities or hot water for washing, bathing, showering or cleaning dishes, you won’t find it in any of Centrelink’s annual reports. You have to read it in a local Adelaide urban newspaper, The Messenger.

37. These are not the only “Compliance Failures” deliberately omitted from annual reports.

38. Breaching required the failure to comply with some two dozen basic human rights including the most basic right of all, the right to live.

39. Breaching also required Centrelink’s Compliance Failure when it came to complying with basic civil, legal and constitutional rights such as the constitutional right to have the merits of an alleged “Breach of Contract”, i.e. “Compliance Failure” determined by a court rather than a Centrelink clerical administrator or even a customer service assistant with no legal jurisdiction or qualifications to determine the merits of an alleged “Compliance Failure”. Is this “Compliance Failure” reported in Centrelink’s annual reports?

40. What about the “Compliance Failure” when it came to Natural Justice? Centrelink is the Accuser, i.e. the Plaintiff in what is legally a “Breach of Contract” dispute between Centrelink and a client. It is a gross violation of Natural Justice, when the Plaintiff in a Breach of Contract dispute gets to play, no strike that out, gets to be the judge, the jury, and on 5,000 or more occasions, the Executioner.

41. Without a shadow of doubt, the most basic “Compliance Failure” of all is the perpetual failure of Centrelink management to report the failure to comply with the Common Law “Duty of Care” that every Centrelink client is entitled to.

42. Deprived of the protection of the courts and the constitution, welfare recipients were fair game for both the insensitive and the down right predatory.

43. Ever since the 1946 Nuremburg war crimes trials, the excuse that “I was only following orders” has been totally unacceptable as a defense for crimes against humanity. Breaching is a crime against humanity that deliberately targeted at-risk Aussie Battlers. Of all the legal entities in Australia, whether individual persons or incorporated organizations, ONLY welfare recipients were subjected to administrative proceedings for an alleged “Breach of Contract” rather than having the dispute settled in a court of law.

44. Of all the legal entities in Australia, whether individual persons or incorporated organizations, ONLY welfare recipients can now be accused of “Compliance Failure” with the accuser, Centrelink unilaterally determining the outcome rather than having the dispute settled in a court of law.

45. The fact that “administrative proceeding may be much cheaper than litigation in a court is no excuse for violating the constitutional and legal rights of 3 million Aussie Battlers. It is an atrocious act of bullying, committed for the simple reason that these battlers were too poor to be able to afford a legal challenge to the legal and humanitarian indignities that were being heaped upon them.

46. Over 3 million people have been violated and traumatized by breaching. John Howard, Kevin Rudd and a dismally long list of federal politicians have never refuted or denied my estimate that since breaching was introduced, more than 5,000 welfare recipients have been killed.

47. If you wish to refute or deny that estimated death toll, please make sure that you supply the precise figure, preferably on a state by state, year by year basis so that voters can make an informed choice when voting in the next federal election.

48. “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and the needy”.

The above quote, taken from Proverbs, chapter 31, verses 8 and 9 of the Good News Bible, sets out in plain language, a common responsibility that we share. However, the difference between you and I is that whilst you are paid to do it and have not done so, I must pay to do so and am doing it. The 48 points listed above merely skim the surface of the crime and corruption issues presented by the problems caused by breaching legislation and the deliberate, systematic concealment of those issues in official reports and through the deliberate misuse of Parliament Privilege powers. In my next email to you I shall raise the issue as to why there is a high degree of probability that the Australian Federal Police and the Howard Government may have entered into a secret deal involving no investigation in exchange for the draconian police powers that were contained in the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2. In the meantime, keep in mind that Tony Abbott’s call for a judicial inquiry into “Roofgate” most definitely fits into the category of “Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it”!

Ronald Medlicott (Christian welfare justice activist.)

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s