Can Craig Thomson really bring down the Federal Parliament with his “courtesy letters”
“Courtesy letters” is a term recently used by The Austrlain to describe letters from whistleblowers who are not happy with the way in the Opposition and the mass media have got stuck into him. Below is the text of one of my letters to Mr Thomson that outlines the content of documents provided to him. Can he really bring down the Federal Parliament with the information being sent to him? Only time will provide that answer, but if push comes to shove, given the right motivation, it may be all to easy. Read and decide for yourself:
Enclosed are certified copies of a series of documents collected over almost a decade as I have endeavoured to have social injustices issues recognized and addressed by government agencies and the Federal Parliament. You may find most of them very useful in ‘deflecting’ some of your current problems and having the Opposition and the mass media back off. These documents may also be useful when dealing with the AFP, the CDPP and other agencies who may be investigating your allegedly inappropriate conduct.
Document #1: AFP email refusing to investigate ‘Perksgate’. (3 pages)
Note the Spurious and Frivolous reasons stated by Federal Agent Pearce for the AFP’s refusal to investigate the alleged rorting of $4.64 Million by 144 elected Members of Parliament in the run up to the 2007 election:
- Too busy, i.e. “current investigational workload”; a euphemism for the fact that a taskforce of 10 AFP officers were working with Centrelink to check anonymous hot-line tip offs.
- “…the subject of political debate and inquiry”. So much for the separation of powers between the legislature and the judicial system!
- “…apparently seen in the media” Where I saw it does not matter, the Law had been violated by 144 MPs and I had every right to request an investigation in accordance with Due Process of Law. Heck! Even the AFP was running “See something, hear something, say something” adverts on TV way back in 2006 and so they should have known that the source was unimportant. Besides, I did not pull this quote out of a newspaper! “As elected officials holding public office, Parliamentarians are expected to act with integrity in accordance with the public trust placed in them.” (Source: Page 12, Auditor-General’s Report No.3 2009-10. Audit Report – Administration of Parliamentarians’ Entitlements by the Department of Finance and Regulation.)
- “…the subject of an Auditor-General report.” And the next document is from the Auditor-General saying that it is NOT his job to investigate; that task is the responsibility of the cops who were trying to imply that it was the Auditor-General’s job. This is buck-passing 101 and you can have a field day with it; every time a federal investigator asks you a question just hand them the AFP letter.
- “…gravity/sensitivity”. It appears that when it comes to welfare recipients, there is apparently enough “…gravity/sensitivity” to justify an AFP investigation but when it comes to Federal MPs, there is apparently not enough “…gravity/sensitivity” to justify an investigation! Or have I got that wrong and there is too much “…gravity/sensitivity” when it comes to Federal MPs? Which ever answer is correct, none are acceptable.
Document #2: The Auditor-General’s letter. (2 pages)
This is a repeat of a similar letter from the Auditor-General’s office in 2004 which also pointed out that investigating the actions of Trish Draper and John Howard in the “Travelgate” scandal were the responsibility of the AFP and not the Auditor-General’s office.
Document #3: AFP letter refusing to investigate ‘Travelgate’, Quotagate and other issues. (2 pages)
The AFP commissioner, Mick Keelty, was asked to investigate Trish Draper’s 2000 overseas ‘fact finding tour’ in which she left her defacto spouse at home looking after her 4 children and took a young gentleman overseas with her and then falsely claimed that this gentleman was her defacto spouse. Commissioner Keelty was asked if:
- Trish Draper had “Defrauded the Commonwealth by obtaining a (travel allowance) benefit by deception?
- Was John Howard was “An accessory after the fact” because he allegedly knew what Trish Draper had done but never reported her actions to the police?
This related to the Howard Government’s secret implementation of Breaching Performance Indicator Target Quotas. NOTE: There was definitely no mention of these quotas in the newspapers; Cheryl Kernot’s June 27th 2000 press release and the Pearce Inquiry report, plus my own queries with Centrelink staff, were most definitely not in the newspapers as Federal Agent Denley claimed. Commissioner Keelty was asked if:
- Were the quotas an illegal misuse of lawful authority (Malfeasance) for the purpose of deliberately defrauding welfare recipients of legitimate welfare entitlements?
- Were the fatalities caused by this unlawful activity either Manslaughter or Felony Murder?
If these quotas were unlawful, then the deaths were definitely unlawful because in South Australia, buried deep in a long forgotten but never rescinded Act, the 1935 Criminal Laws Consolidation Act, there is the crime of Felony Murder, a crime that can see people convicted of murder just for hiding details of unlawful deaths, a law that makes the next letter so very significant for Tony Abbott.
Document #4: Assistant Secretary Neil Skill’s letter.
The key statement in this letter is found in the 2nd paragraph, “Centrelink does not collect…”
Centrelink does not collect…” because Centrelink management chose not to collect.
- Centrelink management chose not to collect because they knew that all of the Breaching fatalities are Actus Reus ‘events’.
- Actus Reus is another way of saying “Unlawful Killings” which, under Common Law is just another way of saying “Murder”.
- As an essential part of an investigation in 2004 AFP investigators should have used a search warrant to conduct a forensic audit of Centrelink’s customer database to identify the precise number of post-breaching (quota) fatalities but the AFP failed to do so because of the “…gravity/sensitivity” of these fatalities.
- How many fatalities were there? Peter Garret tried to hide just 4 but Tony Abbott may, I repeat, may ,be hiding a 4 figure death toll but strangely, News Ltd editors, the Fairfax Press, the 7 Network and the ABC, all do not consider this death toll newsworthy. (Why not ask them about this apparent lack of interest?)
Neil Skill’s admission that Centrelink management was not collecting the data on post-Breaching fatalities was more than adequate evidence to justify a forensic examination of Centrelink’s customer database to determine the number of Actus Reus ‘outcomes’, i.e. the easily foreseen fatalities that are still deliberately being concealed by Centrelink’s senior management. (See the definition of Breaching on the next page.)
The cumulative Breaching Death toll since Breaching legislation was introduced is probably in the range of 2- 4 times the 9/11 death toll and Tony Abbott, who may have his own private scorecard, is not keen to brag about this toll because of Criminal Intent issues, i.e. Mens Rea, which is Malicious Aforethought, Deliberate Intent or Oblique Intent. You also have the reprehensible Criminal Intent issues of Reckless Intent and Knowingly failing to take action to prevent further fatalities.
- This brings us to your Senate colleges who are also not too keen to have even a whisper about these post-breaching fatalities bandied around in Federal Parliament.
Document #5: The undated LEGCON letter. (2 pages)
This is a slam dunk sitter for you to check out. According to the on-line listing of submissions to the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry in November 2005, submission 287 is listed as “Not yet available”. However, as the letter makes quite clear, it is classified as “confident” and carries a parliamentary privilege ’Don’t copy, don’t distribute’ order to back this up. The documents covered by that order include the AFP letter and the Auditor-General’s 2004 letter. (Tony Abbott’s breaching fatalities really are a ‘sensitive’ issue!)
Document #6: The ECA Senate Committee letter. (1 page)
Tony Abbott’s breaching fatalities may be a really ‘sensitive’ issue but Tony Abbott is not exactly a Sensitive New Age kind of guy as his “Industrial Manslaughter” crack at Peter Garrett demonstrated back in February 2010. That remark was a text book case of 3-fingers pointing backwards, because Tony not only never mentioned his own ‘scorecard’, as Hansard clearly records, he was pro doubling up the 13 week Breaching penalty to 26 weeks! A pretty clear case of ramping up the volume.
Term of Reference #3 for the ECA Inquiry into what the mass media (not me) called “Roofgate” was a muck raking “Any other matters.” Well, this Opposition controlled Senate committee wanted ‘muck’, and it got it, by the bucket load. The only problem was that it was the wrong ‘muck’.
“Any other fatalities, caused by any fraud, in any other government program, under the responsibility of any other minister, in any other government” seemed a perfect fit for the “Any other matters” term of reference.
- What the ECA copped was some of the material that I have provided to you with this letter. Heaven forbid, the committee could not have the public finding out about Tony’s scorecard! People might want to know how many impoverished people had died that Tony had, like Peter Garrett, also ‘forgotten’ to mention to Federal Parliament.
- On 1st April 2002, Tony Abbott and Senator Amanda Vanstone released the 2002 Welfare Reform Discussion Paper. Paragraph 47 of this document described a welfare allowance as “a targeted payment to financially impoverished people for the purpose of assisting these people to meet their most basic living costs.” The problem with this statement was that it opened the door to a chilling Mens Rea question: How dangerous is it to deliberately stop impoverished people meeting their most basic living costs?”
- The above definition of the welfare allowance by Tony Abbott and Amanda Vanstone made this definition of Breaching legislation possible: “Breaching is the targeted and therefore deliberate removal of the only means of support, from people who have no other means of support, so that for a period of 3 months they are unable to meet even the most basic costs of living.”
Please note that although this committee tossed out my submission, it still has yet another a parliamentary privilege ‘Don’t’ copy, don’t distribute’ gag order attached to it. Tucked away in cold storage is a 3rd letter from the Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Committee that I received in March 2006 that wrote off Breaching fatalities as “irrelevant” and “unsubstantiated”. I do not consider the unlawful killing of welfare recipients to be “irrelevant” and when it came to “unsubstantiated”, all the committee chairperson had to was (Source: Centrelink customer database.) ask the Department of Employment to cough up these statistics, which as the above sample from Centrelink’s database table clearly illustrates, were readily available to the EWRE Committee.
NOTE: Centrelink’s database was ‘open’ to the world for several years due to a Howard Government blunder.
Document #7: The ACC Letter. (1 page)
As this letter makes quite clear, the ACC will not investigate the very real possibility that in 2004, the Howard Government and the AFP did a ‘dirty deal’.
The logic is text book ‘conflict of interest stuff: “The ACC’s priorities are set by the ACC Board which consists of the heads of the Commonwealth law enforcement agencies…” Translation, the ACC would not investigate Mick Keelty without Mick Keelty’s permission. Nice one that!
- As for the various other State and Territory commissioners, how many of them want to loose the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 legislation. If the federal legislation is the proceeds of a crime, then the State and Territory enabling legislation is not worth the paper that it is printed on.
Current state of play on the AFP decisions.
On the 12th May 2012, I emailed the AFP’s internal investigation/ethics unit requesting that the 2004 and 2009 decisions be rescinded and that the senior officers responsible be investigated. Unlike the extremely quick response from Agent Pearce in September 2009, I have not heard from this unit. What has happened is that the phone hacking campaign took a new twist the next day when my wife sent me an SMS that arrived 3 days later! Ditto for an SMS from my daughter and for emails over the last 6 years, etc.
Document #8: The Bob Brown Letter. (1 page)
Who knew about Breaching fatalities? A more correct question would be who didn’t know? Check out the last sentence written by Ron Jelleff, one of Senator Brown’s support staff. “As you have indicated breaching can lead people to such despair that they take their own lives.” That statement kind of says it all.
Document #9: The Mark Arbib Letter. (1 page)
“Colloquial post-breaching terminology… no official record”, I think not. A former job club manager and Job Network recruitment consultant in the mid to late 1990s, some of my former peers are also aware of this term which was once used to record post-breaching fatalities. I believe that the term is changed regularly to prevent a ‘build-up’ of numbers in this category and this ‘burying’ of the data by changing the database field names is why a highly experienced forensic data analyst will be required to find all of these squirrelled away statistics.
The Public Service ‘gravediggers’.
On the next page are details of documents which reveal the ‘gravedigger’ role played by public servants who either knowingly or unwittingly, are helping to bury the issue of post-breaching fatalities. The significance for you is that in doing so, they are probably helping to bury any prosecution of you.
Document #10: My letter to the CDPP.
On its own this letter does not make much sense for it is out of context. The context is that Federal Agent Denley’s July 7th 2004 letter refusing to investigate ‘Travelgate’ and the ‘Quotagate’ fatalities, along with other documents, were provided to the CDPP and their response was to do absolutely nothing. Should you choose to utilize a Manifest Ostensible Bias defense, tabling this letter would draw the court’s attention to the fact that the CDPP was an “Accessory after the fact” to the concealment of post-breaching fatalities that were triggered by the Howard Government’s illegal implementation of Breaching Performance Indicator Target Quotas.
Every jury has 2 – 3 current or former welfare recipients who would probably not appreciate this failure to act by the CDPP.
- Said jurors, in fact, all of the jurors ,would probably be outraged by the previously mentioned, “irrelevant” classification of these fatalities by the EWRE Committee in March 2006. AS this ‘jewel in the crown’ document is in cold storage, it may take a week or two to get it to you, but I will do so as soon as is convenient.
Document #11: The ACMA letter from Jenny Brigg. (2 pages)
This document summarizes two keys issues in one of 4 complaints lodged with the ACMA last year.
- That SAS 7 has been aiding and abetting Centrelink to rip off welfare recipients by deliberately concealing the 6 Week Rule found in paragraph 1,237a of the Social Security Act. Some Centrelink staff have been ignoring this law for years and recently an aged member of my extended family fell victim to this intimidating, coercive fraud.
- That SAS 7 has been hiding post-breaching fatalities since at least August 2004 and as a direct consequent, more fatalities occurred because of a lack of public awareness of the lethal consequences of breaching legislation.
The significance for you is that these allegations should have prompted a criminal investigation under Clause 7 (1) (h) of Section 2 of the Broadcasting Services Act (1992) but the ACMA deliberately avoiding undertaking such an investigation for it would have exposed the Howard Government’s illegal implementation of Breaching Performance Indicator target Quotas and the fatalities caused by that activity. So, whilst the FWA whose remit is industrial Affairs was conducting a criminal investigation of the HSU, the ACMA deliberately avoided conducting a criminal investigation of far, far more serious issues.
Document #12: The email letter from the Ombudsman’s Office. (1 page)
The above complaint was ditched in ACMA report 2780. A 6 point complaint was submitted to the Ombudsman’s office and I was given until May 29th to complete my lodgement of this complaint, a date totally at odds with the next letter from the Ombudsman’s Office.
Document #13: The 2nd letter from the Ombudsman’s Office. (1 page)
Dated 24th May, this letter is a summary of the issues discussed in a phone conversation with the writer, Geoff Bridgland, on May 21st. Note his concluding comment that the file on my complaint was closed.
We never discussed the ACMA Report 2780 aspect of my complaint.
- At the time that we spoke on May 21st, Geoff Bridgland had not received my formal complaint, a 108 page document titled “Ultra Vires: Undermining Rule of Law.”
- I was under the impression that I still had until the 29th to submit my complaint along with supporting material, i.e. all of the documents relevant to the ACMA Report 2780 complaint.
In summary, the Ombudsman’s Office closed the file on the complaint BEFORE the due date for lodging the full complaint and the supporting documents! Any reasonable person could only conclude that the Ombudsman’s Office was ultra-keen to bury the ‘Ultra Vires’ complaint.
When it comes to issues such as welfare recipients being ripped off by Centrelink and the embarrassing problem of the unreported post-breaching breaching fatalities (unlawful killings):
- NOT ONE GOVERNMENT AGENCY WILL INVESTIGATE.
- Tony Abbott is not most definitely not telling.
- Parliament is covering up these issues with suppression orders.
So, why are you being investigated if ‘The Establishment’ and the mass media don’t care two hoots about these far greater crimes. It would appear that the policy of ‘let’s dump on Craig Thomson’ is a massive case of Ostensible Bias.
Files on the CDROM.
Ultra Vires: Undermining Rule of Law.
- Report 2780 (A burial job by the ACMA that is chock full of hubris and ostensible bias!)
- An Absence of Justice. (A closer look at the ways in welfare recipients have been shafted.)
- An MP3 file of Penny Wong defending you whilst unknowingly undermining the two AFP letters. More details can be found on pages 75 and following of the Ultra Vires document.
People like Tony Abbott who live in glass houses should most definitely not be throwing stones.
The documents on the CDROM provide more detailed information if you wish to know the unpalatable truths that the Opposition (and the ALP leadership) are still hiding from backbenchers and the general public.
Ron Medlicott (Christian welfare justice advocate.)
 ACMA complaint 2011/1846 is was a complaint lodged with the ACMA last year and tossed out in AFP style, i.e. without an investigation. On Monday 21st May 2012, an appeal against ACMA Report 2780 was lodged with the Ombudsman’s Office and I was given until the 29th May to get more information to their investigators. However, my complaint about the failure of the AFP to investigate the 2004 & 2009 AFP decisions was tossed out as “more than a year” had passed and so the complaint was too old to process. In tossing out the AFP complaint, the complaint about ACMA Report 2780 was also tossed out, even though the date for lodgement of information had not expired. Needless to say, that decision will be the subject of an appeal.
 Henry Kissinger once responded to complaints that the USA was over-reacting to potential threats with the quip, “You are not paranoid if someone is out to get you”. 9/11 and other El Qaeda attacks proved the wisdom and truth in that response.