Centrelink’s Secret: The Post Breaching Terminal Outcomes, a serious Compliance Failure.

(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.)

It is true, you can learn from your mistakes. In my last blog, the letter to members of the Federal Parliament, I made a bonza bluey for I was wrong when I wrote that only 2,805 been breached in the 2008-09 financial year. The reality is that the 2,805 only refers to the number of breached welfare recipients who were offered post breaching support when breached for 8 weeks. To quote from Centrelink’s 2008-09 annual report:

“When a job seeker, who is either exceptionally vulnerable or has vulnerable dependants, faces an eight-week non-payment period, Centrelink offered financial case management services to help prevent hardship”.

  1. The measures that should have been in place to protect welfare recipients when breaching legislation was first introduced are starting to come but they are decades too late.
  2. For all of those who died when there was no post breaching support, this is most definitely a case of “Too little, too late”! The Centrelink statement supports my claim that breaching has been A Criminal Act of Reckless Endangerment committed against the “exceptionally vulnerable”. As mentioned in my previous blogs, “A reckless indifference to human life that results in a death, is a crime”, i.e. Felony Murder in South Australia and Manslaughter by Criminal Negligence in Victoria and other states.

“Additionally, in 2008–09, the Social Work Service: provided suicide awareness training “

Apart from being another case of Too little, Too late, the above statement raises a number of questions such as the need for such training and the effectiveness of such training:

  1. The most critical question of all is how many breached welfare recipients committed suicide before this suicide awareness training was implemented?
  2. Since every breaching triggered death is a homicide, equally critical is the question of why these homicides were never reported in Centrelink’s annual reports?
  3. Suicide was just one of many “natural causes” that resulted in the deaths of welfare recipients. For people with Hypertension problems, the shock of being breached was sometimes enough to trigger a fatal heart attack or stroke. People forced out on to the street died from exposure or poor hygiene related medical problems. Again, none of these post breaching homicides have ever been reported in Centrelink’s annual reports.
  4. Transparency is the true key to Accountability and the failure of Centrelink management to include post breaching homicides in their annual reports is a “Compliance Failure” that far exceeds the so called compliance failures of welfare recipients.
  5. Why the Compliance Failure, i.e. why were these homicides not included in the annual reports?
  6. The failure to report these deaths to parliament is also a serious legal issue. Crown vs Josiah Finch in the SA Supreme Court in February 2006 saw the accused teenager, Josiah Finch, sentenced to 14 years with an 8 year non-parole period for concealing the details of just one homicide!
  7. The clear message to Centrelink’s chief administrators is that by not transparently reporting these deaths to Parliament, you may have exposed yourself to the same fate as Josiah Finch!

Page 32 of the 2008-09 annual report provides details of Centrelink’s current efforts to manage internal fraud. Again, these efforts reflect what should have been in place when breaching legislation was set and when Centrelink was launched.

“Centrelink has various confidential methods for the public and employees to report internal fraud. All allegations of inappropriate employee involvement are assessed and suspected fraud or misconduct is investigated. When necessary, cases are referred to the Australian Federal Police and/or the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution for criminal proceedings”.

Once again it is a case of “Too little, too late” and “Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted”.

1) In the mid 1990s when CES staff used breaching as an administrative convenience or as vocational sport, there was no protection for welfare recipients.

2) Again, in 1998 when some of my peers in the Job Network misused breaching legislation for financial gain, there was no protect for welfare recipients who were being defrauded of legitimate welfare entitlements.

3) When I reported this fraud in writing, no action was taken.

4) Instead of reporting this fraudulent activity to the Federal Police, in 1998, Centrelink management tried “administrative measures” to control the rorting by implementing a secret moratorium on breaching.

5) By keeping the rorting a secret, welfare recipients who had been defrauded of legitimate welfare entitlements received neither restitution nor “Victims of Crime” compensation”.

6) Every homicide resulting from this criminal activity was a serious crime and by failing to report this activity to the police, it is highly probable that the Centrelink decision makers who were allegedly involved in the concealment of this rorting activity are in violation of laws dealing with unlawful deaths.

The role of the Australian Federal Police in dealing with fraud is of grave concern for the AFP has been anything but impartial:.

When necessary, cases are referred to the Australian Federal Police and/or the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution for criminal proceedings”.

1) In June 2004 the Australian Federal Police were asked to investigate whether or not one of John Howard’s “Golden Girls”, Trish Draper had defrauded the Commonwealth by obtaining a benefit by Deception.

2) They were also asked whether or not the deaths arising from the Howard Government’s enforcement of breaching quotas and the fraudulent activity of Job Network agencies mentioned above, constituted either Felony Murder or Manslaughter.

3) The Australian Federal Police refused to investigate citing “gravity/sensitivity”.

4) In November 2005, all documents relating to that decision were secretly classified as confidential by the Senate’s Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee!

5) On 1st March 2010, the Senate’s Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee issued a second suppression order when the “Any other matters” term of reference into the “Roofgate” inquiry opened the door to other deaths that also were the result of mal-administration and corruption having to be considered by the committee.

6) As of the time and date of this blog being posted, the deaths of welfare recipients from breaching activities still remains an official secret and the Federal Police have twice declined to investigate breaching triggered deaths that occurred anywhere in Australia, including the Australian Capital Territory.

7) On April 1st 2010, the Australian Crime Commission was made aware of the secrecy surrounding breaching triggered deaths and the refusal of the Australian Federal Police to investigate these deaths. Continuing pressure will be applied until this commission launches an inquiry into breaching triggered deaths and the AFP refusal to investigate.

The following two comments on Data Mining are from pages 34 – 35 of the annual report.

“Following a two-year pilot project which showed data mining is a cost effective debt prevention and risk identification tool, in 2008–09 Centrelink decided to adopt this new technology to identify more customers at risk of non-compliance”.

“Through analysing compliance reviews to determine their efficiency and effectiveness in achieving savings, data mining also provides evidence on which to base resource allocation for review activities across Centrelink”.

1 Using the “SAS” software referred to above, it is possible to extract information buried deep in Centrelink’s database in just seconds.

2 This means that Centrelink staff have the capability, but apparently not the willingness, to identify every breaching triggered death right back to the very first post breaching outcome.

3 Despite almost 7 years of trying to obtain this information, including waiting the last 5 months for the Home Affairs Minister, Brendan O’Connor, to make it available, I am still waiting to receive these statistics.

4 Given that each of these deaths is a breaching homicide that remains unreported to parliament, and that many are reckless endangerment, manslaughter or Felony Murder deaths, I guess the reluctance to hand over this information is understandable.

“Serious Failures”

A rose by any other is still a rose. Breaching now has a new name, “Compliance Failures”, with the 8 week breaching period now referred to as a “Serious Failure” (to comply). This change of name has some interesting implications:

1) The breaching death toll count, under the new name of “Serious Failures” gets reset to Zero. Do a word search for Breaching of welfare recipients and you strike out as the terminology is no longer used.

2) Breaching deaths can now be called “Serious Failure to Comply Homicides”. That title is very accurate for, as decades of breaching “Compliance” reveals, it is all about “Do as we say or we will randomly kill some of you”.

3) If that sounds very familiar, it is because that is the “option” that Al Qeada and J.I. terrorists offer to western society. That is why breaching is an act of terrorism; the intention, implementation and lethal consequences of both breaching and terrorism are so close that it is difficult to differentiate between the two.

Centrelink’s “Compliance Frame work.” (Page 52)

“Participation Solutions Teams are responsible for considering all factors that may have contributed to a participation failure, especially taking account of a customer’s vulnerability and ability to comply”.

That statement is a text book Denial of Natural Justice.

1) Centrelink is the Accuser.

2) Centrelink sits in Judgement.

3) Centrelink passes Sentence.

Is Centrelink able to verify that the members of the Participation Solution Teams had no absolutely no involvement, either directly or indirectly, with:

1) Administrative Breaching for Convenience;

2) Vocational Breaching Competitions;

3) Job Network Breaching for Profit;

4) The Howard Government’s illegal enforcement of Breaching Quotas.

5) Without that assurance, Centrelink could be negligent by “Putting the foxes in charge of the hen house”.

Random Points to note:

1) 346,078 “Serious Failure” breaches in FY 2000-01 and 66,210 “Serious Failure” breaches in FY 2008-09. That represents a massive 522.69% reduction in breaching activity when comparing these two sets of breaching statistics.

2) 2,805 exceptionally vulnerable breached victims out of 66,210 represents 4.23% of all people breached in FY 2008-09. With some 3 million people have been breached, that means that there were as many as 120,000 exceptionally vulnerable victims of breaching and if even only 10% of these victims died, the real death toll, at 12,000+, would be well in excess of my estimate of 5,000+.

3) A death toll of that magnitude would put Centrelink in the same category as Al Qaeda!

4) It is no wonder that neither John Howard or Kevin Rudd have challenged my estimate!

5) Centrelink’s 190 page 2008-09 annual report contains 2 references to the word “Compassion” in the context of staff showing compassion to victims of natural disasters. There are no references to the word “Compassion” in reference to people who are the victims of the unemployment disaster.

6) Centrelink’s 2008-09 annual report contains no reference a Humanitarian Impact Statement.

7) Centrelink’s 2008-09 annual report contains 10 references to the word “Failure”.

8) Centrelink’s 2008-09 annual report contains 53 references to the word “Fraud”.

9) Centrelink’s 2008-09 annual report contains 50 references to the word “Compliance”.

10) Clearly, Centrelink’ Public Service administrators have little empathy for the people that they serve and do not trust them.

11) Equally clearly, Centrelink’ Public Service administrators have never reported the humanitarian consequences of breaching, a Serious Compliance Failure which raises the obvious question of what are they hiding?

12) Any welfare recipient who has been breached without any assessment of the humanitarian impact can jointly and severally sue both the Crown and individual Centrelink administrators for “Reckless Endangerment” and/or for being Defrauded of Legitimate Welfare Entitlements. Individually, no lawyer would act “Pro bono”, i.e. for free because it is in the Public Interest. Therefore, if you are considering doing so, I strongly recommend that you network with like minded people and consider a class action.

13) Mabo and Wik were ground breaking class actions in the High Court. These two successful landmark decisions have paved the way for a successful challenge to the validity of breaching legislation.

14) A simple reality is that whilst Breaching/Compliance Measures may be “Legal”, until this legislation is tested in the High Court, Centrelink management cannot claim that it is Constitutional. Once the High Court is confronted with the humanitarian consequences of breaching legislation, it is highly unlikely that this court will endorse breaching legislation.

Ron Medlicott (Christian welfare justice activist.)

“Put all things to the test: keep what is good and avoid every kind of evil”.

Good News Bible I Thessalonians, chapter 5, verse 21.

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

4 Responses to Centrelink’s Secret: The Post Breaching Terminal Outcomes, a serious Compliance Failure.

  1. alight2011 says:

    I have had a in-law relative, a long term recipient of social security income, who, when their income support was repeatedly threatened by C/link, committed suicide. Death was reported as a tragic result from depression. I agree with “result” but that’s not the cause. Suicide,suicide attempt, suicide ideation related to members of our society in receipt of social security income are all too often not causal linked to dealings with C/link, Job Networks and Social Security Law.
    alight2011

    • yadnarie48 says:

      Hi,

      I currently now have 4 complaints against the 7 network filed with the ACMA broadcasting investigation section alleging that channel 7 aided and abetted Centrelink to defraud welfare recipients by concealing the 6 week rule and that the 7 network has violated state and terrirory laws that deal with the concealment of unlawful killings.

      Under SA law, your relative’s death can possibly be classified as felony murder! In other states it may be possible to have it reclassified as criminal negligence. Check out the following URL which gives a recent example of how the law may apply in the case of your relative’s death:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082210/Sarah-McKinley-Teen-mom-shoots-dead-intruder-week-babys-father-died-cancer.html

      Sarah McKinley shot and killed Justin Martin. HOWEVER, It was Dustin Stewart who was charged with Felony Murder. WHY? Shooting Justin was not a crime, but breaking into Sarah’s home was.

      When a death occurs as a result of a crime, then persons who violated the law, i.e commited a crime, can be charged with Felony Murder, not only in Oklahoma where Ms McKinsey lives but also in some Australian states. If enough families of those killed by centrelink’s insensitive and ruthless mistreatment of welfare recipients, e.g. Breaching , raise their collective voices in protest, then these deaths will have to be investigated. PLEASE, contact me at ronald48@optusnet.com.au and I will email you jpeg images of documents that highlight just how desperate polticians and DEEWR and Centrelink staff are to hide these fatalities. In addition to South Australia’s felony murder law, other states have “A reckless indifference to human life” laws that make it possible to have these deaths reclassified as criminal Negligence which opens the door to compensation due to criminal negilgence. In addition to receiving compensation, families would also be in a position to demand criminal prosecutions of the politicans and public servants who were responsible for these deaths.

      Please, check out the following videos and if you believe that it is appropriate, think about providing me with the name of the person who died and the date. I am in communication with Assistant Secretary Matt hall of the Attorney-General’s Office. He was tasked by the Priome Minister’s office to keep tabs on my complaints to the ACMA. The details that you provide would be kept private and confidential but, if you approved, I would forward them to Mr Hall as further evidence of the fact that welfare policies under the current Centrelink management can sometimes be lethgal.

      Ron Medlicott.

      YouTube videos:
      Centrelink Prosecutions: Bunging a spanner in the works.

      NEW: Are Centrelink penalties unconstitutional?

      NEW: Centrelink and the 6 week Rule.

      Murder by Legislation: The Canberra Killers Club.

      Centrelink’s Secret Breaching Triggered death Toll.

      Billabong Ghosts (How almost 4 million Aussie Battlers were thrown in the Billabong.)

    • yadnarie48 says:

      Last year in an federal Administrative Appeal Tribunal, I made the following comment which was not challenged by the Crown Law lawyer or by the presiding AAT Member:

      “In the 10-year period from 1st January 1997 until the 31st December 2006, there were 20,914 suicides ; a significant percentage of which were unemployed people. It is not possible to state precisely how many were post breaching fatalities because Centrelink does not collect the data, the Federal Parliament has secretly classified the death toll as “confidential” and “irrelevant”… the Australian Federal Police has refused to investigate [these deaths] because of the “gravity/sensitivity”.
      Administrative Appeal Tribunal, case# 2014/

      ALL breaching triggered suicides are homicides under Australian laws and, because breaching violates Article 7.2 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of Justice (the ICC), they are murders under 5 (1) (a) of the Rome Statute. Depending upon which state that you live in and the wording of the state Crimes Act, breaching fatalities are either manslaughter due to criminal negligence or else they are a felony murder:
      QLD – statute 302 (4), i.e. statute 302, sub-paragraph 4 of the QLD Crimes Act (1899)
      – see also “hastening of death” under 295, 296 and 297.
      WA – statute 279 (4)
      NSW – statute 18 (1)
      SA – statute 13 (7) – ignore 13 (1) and focus upon 13 (7)
      Tasmania – statute 156 (4) (c)
      Northern Territory – s31 (1) and/or statute statute 162 (1) (a)
      Victoria – statute 3 (A)

      The 1998 National Health Priorities report – mental health, indicated that since 1990 more people die from suicide than all other other forms of violent death, e.g. car accidents or murders. A 2007 report reveals that 1 in 3 is an unemployed person. Over a period measured in decades, the cumulative, secretly classified and unreported death toll is massive; probably between 15,000 and 60,000.

      I am currently assisting someone with an appeal of the AAT decision in which the “judge” ignored the fact that although the dispute revolved around who said what in an income reporting phone call, Centrelink will not release the recording of that call and the “judge” let that slide, along with the above mentioned deaths which actually numbered 23,254.

      Details of the death of your family member would be appreciated. Contact me at ronald48@optusnet./com.au with the subject line EMCOTT REPORT. I shall send you a copy of this document and it may be possible to link you up with others so that a class action law suit against Centrelink for all of these suicides can be launched.

      The family of Ian Ward in WA received $3.2 Million in an out-of-court settlement for Mr Ward’s negligent death. the willful intent, i.e. the mindset of murder, evident in breaching suicides could up that considerably but the real benefit could be the knowledge that your relative was not a “suicide” but a homicide victim.

      Suicide under “duress” when people have been emotionally “overwhelmed and stupefied” is a homicide and the world’s best example of that is the “9/11 jumpers” who had the choice of being roasted alive or jumping from the Twin Towers, i.e. that are what in law is known as “proxy murders”, a crime where the killer gets someone else to do the killing and with suicides, tragically, that person is the victim who has been pushed too far.

      Ron Medlicott
      (yadnarie48)

  2. Pingback: Ronald’s Space – Centrelink’s Secret: The Post Breaching Terminal Outcomes, A serious Compliance Failure – 1 July 2014 | Lucas 2012 Infos

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