Senate Secrets #1: Senate classified documents in this blog reveal how breaching fatalities were hidden from the public.

Just watched the BURN NOTICE video at:  

Then skip forward to  my Ronald’s space posting at:


[Note: the short link for this posting is: ]

Some of the documents in this blog are the subject of a secret Australian Senate “Confidential” classification that is easy to verify. These same documents are the subject of 2 “don’t copy, don’t distribute” suppression orders.

Why the secrecy?

Because the Australian Parliament is riddled with both endemic corruption and systemic corruption. As 2 of the (now) classified Australian Federal Police documents reveal, until a few months ago, Australian federal politicians who rorted the system would not face investigations by the Federal Police because of the “gravity/sensitivity” of the issue!

If you live in the USA, try to imagine these 3 incredible, real-life scenarios that actually happened in Australia:

  1. PERKSGATE (2007): Imagine that 144 members of Congress and the Senate rip-off almost $5 Million in taxpayers money in order to fund their re-election campaigns.
  2. They are ‘outed’ by the Federal Auditor-General who is furious with this rip-off but does not call in the FBI.
  3. The politicians talk about this rort and agree not to do it again!
  4. A member of the public asks the FBI to investigate but the FBI refuses because the politicians have talked it over and agreed not to do it again.
  5. In order to discourage further fraud, the politicians are given big pay rises. (At $550,00, the Australian Prime Minister is now paid more than the US president!)
  1. TRAVELGATE (2000): An earlier, smaller scale of the Perksgate rip-off in which a female member of the Australian Government goes on an overseas ‘fact-finding-tour’ taking along a young gentleman who is NOT her defacto spouse. (Her real defacto spouse is at home looking after the 4 children.)
  2. Upon returning, the politician claims a travel allowance for the young gentleman by falsely claiming that he is her defacto spouse.
  3. When the Prime Minister finds out what she has done, he does not call in the cops but instead covers up this fraud.
  4. In May 2004, a sacked office worker blows the whistle on this rort and a member of the public  asks the Federal Police to investigate both the government MP and the Prime Minister.
  5. In order to avoid a criminal prosecution as ‘An accessory after the fact’, the Prime Minister is forced to defend the MP involved in the false travel claim scam.
  6. The Federal Police refuse because they are (implied) ‘too busy’ with their current case workload and because of the “gravity/sensitivity” of the issue which, if investigated, would see both politicians treated before the law in the same manner as welfare recipients, i.e. they would be prosecuted. (See my next blog post.)
  1. QUOTAGATE: This is a very complex fraud that may have resulted in a large number of fatalities. Since 1946, a constitutional amendment has required that the Australian Federal Government pay a welfare allowance to eligible people. (Para 51 (xxiii) (a).
  2. Since that constitutional amendment, successive federal governments have tried to weasel out of this constitutional obligation; a task made easier because constitutional rights are NOT taught in Australian schools.
  3. Unconstitutional ‘breach of contract’ legislation enabled Department of Employment (DEEWR) and Social Security officials (now called Centrelink) played a tag team match in which the unemployed are accused of breach of contract a by DEEWR officials and Centrelink officials would impose an automatic penalty by suspending welfare payments for 13 weeks!
  4. Paragraph 75 of the Australian Constitution is quite clear that this power to resolve breach of contract disputes belongs to the High Court, not the Australian Parliament and certainly not public servants who have zero legal training!!!
  5. Since a High Court challenge, like a challenge to the US Supreme Court, costs mega-bucks, there is no way that the few welfare recipients who know about the legislation is unconstitutional can afford to challenge it.
  6. In the late 1990’s the Howard Government abused this legislation by imposing Breaching Performance Indicator Target quotas (QUOTAGATE) that saw a staggering 900,000 impoverished welfare recipients “breached’ at a rate of about 3 per minute!
  7. Since this activity represented the unlawful misuse of authority, the Howard Government denied any knowledge of these quotas.
  8. Needless to say, when asked to investigate, the Australian Federal Police refused to investigate either this fraud or the death toll caused by this activity.
  9. Tony Abbott was the Employment Minister who was responsible for the 900,000+ breaches being issued. His solution to the problem of the unreported breaching triggered death toll was to support an attempt to double up the penalty to 26 weeks!
  10. It is because of this totally amoral lack of concern for the impact of breaching activity and his out-spoken desire to toughen up the breaching penalties that I have serious concerns that he may be a closet sociopath.
  11. Note: being 10 minutes late for a job interview or case manager interview because the bus was running late was sufficient grounds for the “Breach of Contract” penalty to be applied, i.e. all welfare support cut off automatically for 13 weeks!
  12. Was this fair and reasonable administration? No way! Ruthless fruad? Absolutely!!!

Beyond Quotagate:- “Centrelink does not collect post breaching terminal outcome statistics…” (See the 2nd document in this posting.) More significantly from my viewpoint, Centrelink has never released the statistics on the fatalities caused by this fraudulent activity nor even written one word about the humanitarian disaster caused by this activity. 

  1. How would you feel if you knew that the Federal Government’s welfare agency was deliberately hiding a death toll that may be 4 times the 9/11 death? Would you be concerned?
  2. Would you also be concerned that in all the thousands of pages of reports and data tables, produced over decades, there is not one single word about the humanitarian impact of the breaching policies and practices that triggered this death toll and traumatized almost 4 million million of extremely vulnerable, impoverished people?
  3. The “grave digger” documents in this and future blogs reveal how politicians and the Australian Public Service are trying to defend the indefensible; people have died and these deaths have been, and still are, being “buried”.
  4. A TRILLION DOLLARS: The compensation alone could easily hit a trilllion dollars once the truth is out. However, the big hit for politicians and senior bureaucrats is the loss of power that will come with the disclosure of these fatalities.
  5. The Centrelink post breaching fatalities statistics are the key to everything iposted, or about to be posted, on this blog site. So, the critical question for me is, just how far will these people go to silence this persisitent, never-give-up whistleblower?

These are the basic issues covered by the documents in both this blog and previous as well as future blogs. Currently, Tony Abbott is now the Leader of the Opposition.So consider this, what would have happened if in 2004, Tony Abbott had been the subject of a Federal Police criminal investigation into alleged Quotagate fatalities? In June 2004, the Federal Police commissioner, Mick Keelty, was asked to investigate both the Trish Draper (Travelgate) scandal and the death toll caused by the Howard Government’s highly illegal enforcement of Breaching Performance Indicator Targets, i.e. breaching quotas. (Quotagate).

THIS BLOG IS BASICALLY PUT UP OR SHUT UP! – The core classified confidential documentary evidence is here for you to read. Ironically, the 2nd document is perhaps the most damaging of all the documents that I intend to post and yet it is not (yet) covered by a parliamentary privilege suppression order. (Posting it on this blog is no guarantee that it will not be ‘classified’ because some of the other classified documents are well and truly in the public domain before they were classified. Go figure that one folks!)

To suggest that Tony Abbott may be deliberately hiding a mammoth post-breaching death toll is an extremely serious allegation. Without proof of a cover up my raising these issues would simply just be scurrilous, malicious and defamatory political mud-slinging at the man who since August 2010 has been declaring that he should be the Prime Minister “now”? With this week’s shocking refugee death toll, I believe that it is time to ‘Put up or shut up’ and in this case “Put up” means including in this blog copies of documents that are evidence that support my claims. All 6 of the documents in this blog are “Grave Digger” documents; some are even the subject of illegal senate suppression orders which are intended to conceal ALL of the unreported breaching fatalities, not just those that Tony Abbott failed to report to Parliament. It is quite possible that the cumulative death toll from breaching over a period of decades may be 2 – 4 times the’9/11’ death toll and it is long overdue for the details of this massive humanitarian disaster to finally be made public.

When looking at the 2 Federal Police documents carefully consider Senator Penny Wong’s comments re:

  1. politicians are not judge and jury;
  2. the separation of powers;
  3. Parliament should respect the processes of our courts

The glaringly obvious fact is than in these two now classified federal police documents, the Australian Federal Police declined to uphold the law using spurious, trivial and facetious reasons that had nothing to do with upholding the law and everything to do with cover ups intended to protect federal politicians from the consequences of their actions.

Senator Wong said,

“… there are allegations made against members of parliament, made against individuals in our community … and the appropriate way to deal with those is to allow the courts to deal with them… politicians are not judge and jury when it comes to these matters, and there’s a very good reason for that. Because we have a system that is about the separation of powers and is about proper process when it comes to these and Anthony (Albanese) was making that point… we believe that the Parliament should respect the processes of our courts; the processes which exist for very sound reasons. Regrettably, that’s not the way the Opposition, on this issue, are approaching it.” ABC Radio AM program 11th May 2012

Grave Digger #1. The Federal Police refusal to investigate either ‘Travelgate’ or the ‘Quotagate’ fraud/fatalities. (United States readers: if the FBI did this, would you accept the logic used or would you be hopping mad?)

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

Page 2 with David Fawcett insert:

This is one document in a series of a series of documents that were secretly classified confidential by the Senate’s LEGCON Committee in November 2005. This decision may have been made after 5 weeks of secret negotiations between the AFP and the Howard Government.

  1. Note: The Howard Government crackdown on fraud and rorting most definately did not include Trish Draper and John Howard and as the 3rd document in this blog (below) will reveal, it did not include ANY politicians who may have ripped off taxpayers.
  2. Here is why the Federal Police do not go after Federal politicians who may have ripped off the system and why the AFP was so concerned about the “gravity/sensitivity”of my request for an investigation.
  3. Paragraph 44 (ii)  of the Constitution:- Disqualification for Parliament:-  Any person who:  Is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer…
  4. Any poltitician who rips off the system and is convicted gets booted out of parliament. That is why Tony Abbott was so keen to have the Fair Work Australia report into  the investigation of Craig Thomson released. Bang goes Julia Gillard’s hold on power if Craig Thomson were to be convicted!
  5. However, Tony Abbott should have been investigated in regard to the Quotagate fraud and the fatalities allegedly caused by that activity.
  6. David Fawcett was a “one term wonder” who held the seat of Wakefield for just one term. Booted out in 2007, he is now a senator. The question on my mind is whether or not he is one of the 144 federal politicians involved in the 2007 Perksgate rort? We will not know until the Federal Police obey the constitution and finally investigate Perksgate. (See Grave Digger #3 below.)

Clearly, the Australian Federal Police did not “respect the processes of our courts” when it does not suit them todo so. Due process of Law is conspicuously absent in these two AFP documents. 

“Quotagate”: Are welfare recipients a case of ”Life unworthy of life.” How else do you explain Federal Agent Louise Denley’s incredible refusal to investigate the deaths caused by the Breaching Performance Indicator Target Quotas? Does Agent Denley’s excuse, “gravity/sensitivity” sound okay to you? Like some of Queensland’s 87 ‘Dr Death’ fatalities, once the public finally becomes aware of the scale of the death toll, official inquiries will probably see many of these breaching triggered fatalities being reclassified as either ‘Culpable Manslaughter’ or ‘Felony Murder’.

Grave Digger #2. “Centrelink does not collect Post breaching Terminal Outcomes statistics.” The absence of this mission critical information has never been an accidental oversight!

There is absolutely no way that one politician or public servant could hide such a massive humanitarian disaster for such a long period of time. As Neil Skill’s letter indicates, the official cover up of all of the breaching triggered fatalities has been a decades long cover up that is a team effort that involves political parties, senior public servants in a number of government agencies, and even Federal Police officers. If you believe that that type of corruption simply could not happen in Australia, the 1st ‘grave Digger’ letter from a senior Centrelink official, Neil Skill, may come as quite a shock to you. This is a truly bizarre letter; for starters, this official stationery does not contain a return address! What puts it in the “Life unworthy of life” category is Neil Skill’s frank admission that Centrelink does not collect post-breaching fatalities statistics. During the decades that breaching legislation has been in place, NOT ONE post-breaching fatality has never been reported by any government ministers responsible for either the Employment or Welfare portfolios.

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.

Every year Centrelink management generates literally hundreds of data tables of information that have gone into literally thousands of pages of daily, weekly, quarterly and annual reports but they have never collected and reported the data on breaching triggered fatalities!

Anyone else smell a rat? Why would they collect everything except the most important data of all, i.e. the data on post-breaching fatalities?

Reason #1. How about because Breaching is Unconstitutional and is now potentially a Trillion Dollar liability.

The basic fact is that the process formerly known as ‘Breaching’, which is now call ‘Compliance Failure Measures, is unconstitutional. Politicians knew this but they did not care and thus put their political parties, the Public Service and the Criminal Justice System on the road to hell. The flow-on implication from that is than every welfare recipient who has ever been breached by the DSS or Centrelink will be entitled to Restitution, with compound interest, and/or Compensation for having had their constitutional right to a welfare benefit deliberately violated and their lives deliberately placed at risk.

Reason #2. The dual problems of both Actus Reus and Mens Rea.

A second reason why politicians and DSS/Centrelink and Department of Employment officials would want to hide these fatalities is the dual problems of Actus Reus and Mens Rea. In plain English, this is the criminal law issue of Unlawful Killings that involved Malicious Aforethought. 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.”  

Oops! The problem with this statement was that it opened the door to a chilling Mens Rea (malicious aforethought) question:

Exactly just how dangerous is it to deliberately stop financially impoverished people from meeting their most basic living costs?”

With that statement Tony Abbott and Amanda Vanstone accidentally made it possible to define the unconstitutional breaching activity as A Criminal Act of Reckless Endangerment. Tony Abbott is a Rhodes Scholar and therefore he is most definitely smart enough to have fully appreciated that:

“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.”

  1. Rhodes Scholar or not, defining the welfare allowance was pretty dumb when you consider that between 1st July 1999 and 30th June 2002, Tony Abbott was the Employment Minister who was responsible for over 900,000 breach penalties of 13 weeks duration being issued to financially impoverished Aussie battlers who were struggling to survive on the dole.
  2. Fatalities were inevitable but when they happened, Tony Abbott ‘did a Peter Garrett’, i.e. he never reported them to Federal Parliament.
  3. Even worse, he did nothing to stop any further fatalities by suspending breaching activity and/or establishing a formal inquiry into the role of breaching in these deaths could be undertaken!
  4. The extremely limited official data on the impact of breaching that is available indicates that the survival rate may have been in the range 99.8% to 99.98%.
  5. To put that another way, the probable fatalities may have been in the range of 0.02% to 0.2%. Whilst those percentage figure seem to be so small as to be totally irrelevant, with over 900,000 breaches issues, those percentages represent a probability range of 180 to 1,800 post-breaching fatalities.
  6. Since Tony Abbott was the Employment Minister from 1998 until 2003, it is possible that he may now be concealing a cumulative post-breaching death toll that is close to 2,000.
  7. It is truly terrible to decide that some people are expendable, that it’s okay to destroy, to kill them because they do not measure up to your standards.” By deliberately procrastinating on a solution to the boat people problem Tony Abbott knowingly gambled with other people’s lives and as a consequence, lives have been lost.
  8. In the same manner, by failing to report the first post-breaching fatality that occurred after he became the Employment Minister, Tony Abbott gambled with other people’s lives. However, unlike this week’s boat people disasters, as yet we do not know how many lives Employment Minister Tony Abbott sacrificed on Peter Costello’s economic rationalist altar of “Sound Economic Management”.
  9. 26 Weeks: His solution to the problem of the unreported breaching fatalities is recorded in the Hansard record of parliamentary debate; he supported the doubling of the breaching penalty to 26 weeks!  Correct me if I am wrong, but that WAS a sociopathic response to breaching fatalities.
  10. The ALP and the Australian Democrats rejected this and reduced the penalty to 8 weeks, a solution that totally ignored the fact that breaching is unconstitutional and that many deaths occurred within hours or days, not weeks, of people being breached.
  11.  The broader problem with the unconstitutional, reckless endangerment of welfare recipients is the Actus Reus/Mens Rea legal implications that apply to every other politician and public servant who has helped to concealed these deaths, i.e. the deaths ARE unlawful and that is why “Centrelink does not collect” this data.

Reason #3. ‘Foreseeable’: The consequences of the illegal Breaching Performance Indicator Quotas.

“Foreseeable” means that any decent, reasonable person could have worked out that stopping financially impoverished from meeting their most basic living costs for a period of 3 months was extremely dangerous.

  1. It thus means that Tony Abbott’s ministerial approval of this activity was totally and recklessly unreasonable. That is hardly the sort of quality of character that a nation needs in a potential Prime Minister.
  2. On June 27th 2000, an ALP politician, Cheryl Kernot, issued a press bulletin containing details of Breaching Performance Indicator Target Quotas being enforced by the Howard Government.
  3. These quotas represent both the criminal misuse of lawful authority to defraud welfare recipients of legitimate entitlements, i.e. Criminal Malfeasance, and a Criminally Reckless Disregard for the lives of welfare recipients were being placed risk by this fraudulent activity.

Such a reckless disregard for the potentially lethal consequences of Breaching legislation raises a number of criminal case-law issues that involve the court’s definition of Criminal Intent. The following definitions are commonly used in Australian courts. (Note: my personal viewpoints are in the brackets.)

  1. Direct intention: the accused has a clear foresight of the consequences of his actions, and desires those consequences to occur, i.e. the aim or purpose was to deliberately cause a person’s death. (Think of mass murder by legislation.)
  2. Oblique intention: the result is a virtually certain consequence or a ‘virtual certainty’ of the defendant’s actions, and that the defendant appreciates that such was the case. (Using breaching legislation to kill off welfare recipients.)
  3. Knowingly: the accused knows, or should know, that the results of his conduct are reasonably certain to occur. (The Ministerial Responsibility for the lethal consequences of breaching activity.)
  4. Recklessness:the accused can reasonably foreseethat particular consequences may occur and proceeds with the given conduct, not caring whether those consequences actually occur or not. (Sane people just do not do these things!)

Pick your definition; of the almost 4 million breach penalties, 900,000+ breaches were issued in just 3 years and Tony Abbott, a Rhodes Scholar, knew the risks and yet he apparently ignored them and concealed the death toll caused by breaching. What do you call that?

  1. Too many politicians and public servants appear to support the philosophy that welfare recipients are people a financial drain on the economy and therefore they are “life unworthy of life.” How else do you explain Neil Skill’s incredible “Centrelink does not collect…” statement?
  2. In both Neil Skill’s letter and Federal Agent Denley’s letter, the chilling idea that welfare recipients are Life unworthy of life” screams out in every letter of every word. Both of these letters are “Grave Digger” letters that use shallow, ostensible excuses to bury a shocking, appalling truth, i.e. unconstitutionally deprived of the protection of the courts, welfare recipients were ‘fair game’ for the unscrupulous and as a consequence they were ripped off and slaughtered.
  3. To suggest or imply that the mass murder of an unknown number of welfare recipients is not of sufficient “gravity/sensitivity” clearly implies that as far as the Federal Police are concerned welfare recipients are Life unworthy of life.”  “It’s terrible to decide that some people are expendable, that it’s okay to destroy, to kill.” And yet that is precisely what the Federal Police did!

Having helped to create this sociopathic legislation, the ALP was in no position to blow the whistle when the Howard Government hijacked breaching legislation with Breaching Performance Indicator Target Quotas that were exposed by whistle blowers who provide an ALP politician, Cheryl Kernot, with details of these highly illegal quotas.

Cheryl Kernot’s detailed June 27th 2000 press bulletin about these quotas was not followed up by her colleagues because it would have drawn attention to the ALP’s role in creating this incredibly dangerous, unconstitutional legislation.

Another problem for the ALP was that whilst Labour was in power, CES staff engaged in a range of unlawful misuses of breaching legislation such as breaching competitions. It was thus a case of “people who live in glass hours should not throw stones.”

 Grave Digger#3 The Federal Police refuse to investigate Perksgate.

“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.)


After the  Aiditor-General worked out that 144 federal MPs had ripped off the “Entitlements Fund” to the tune of $4.64 MILLION, the Federal Police again refused to investigate citing almost the same legally invalid reasons as in 2004.

‘Perksgate’: With the July 2004 decision, the Federal Police crossed a line that no cop should ever cross! As a consequence when the 2009 Report #3 by the Auditor-General revealed that 144 Members of Parliament had ‘financed’ their 2007 re-election campaign by ripping off some $4.64 Million from their Parliamentary ‘Entitlements’ Fund, the Federal Police were once more committed to covering up this fraudulent activity by federal politicians. Check out the logic in the Federal Police response to a request that the ‘Perksgate fraud be investigated. (Note that again, the reasons are spurious and inconsistent with both Due Process of Law and the Separation of Powers of the Parliament and the courts, i.e. the reasons are not legally valid.)

  1.  The current furore over Craig Thomson’s alleged fraud to fund his 2007 election campaign merely serves to highlight the point that the AFP’s refusal to investigate this alleged fraud effectively defecated all over the democratic principle of Rule of Law and the Australian Constitution
  2. According to paragraph 5 of the constitution, the law is binding on everyone and no one is exempt from Due Process of Law, not even federal politicians.
  3. Please note: When this Federal Police decision was made, Fair Work Australia (FWA) investigators were already 6 months into investigating Craig Thomson’s alleged fraud of $70,000 from the Health Services Union to fund his 2007 election campaign. Surely, if industrial law investigators can conduct investigations of federal politicians, then the Federal Police can?
  4. Again, the Federal Police are quite happy to sort out this fraud all by themselves, a decision utterly and totally inconsistent with “Separation of Powers” and “Due process of Law.”
  5. Did you also note the “Government Protocols” comment?That statement is an unconstitutional disregard for the “Separation of Powers” of the Parliament and the Criminal Justice System which, according to the constitution, is the domain of the courts.

Both the July 2004 decision and the September 2009 decisions are NOT about upholding the law; they are both about protecting federal politicians from the legal consequences of their unlawful political stupidity and greed.

NUKED – Tony Abbott’s claim that he should be the Prime Minister ‘now’!

  1. Tony Abbott’s claim that he should be the Prime Minister ‘now’ is well and truly ‘nuked’ by Federal Agent Pearce’s email. At the current time, many of the 144 members of Federal Parliament involved in the 2007 ‘Perksgate’ fraud are still members of the Federal Parliament.
  2. Once they are investigated with the same diligence that Craig Thomson has been investigated, it is highly likely that many, if not all 144 politicians, will face criminal charges.
  3. Until such time as those alleged crimes are dealt with in accordance with Due Process of Law, Tony Abbott’s grip on power is completely illusionary.
  4. If the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, is forced to dissolve both houses of parliament because of this corruption, it is highly likely that neither the Coalition nor the ALP will be able to win enough seats to form government.
  5. The public backlash to so many Coalition and ALP MPs being charged with fraud could even result in minor parties such as The Greens and Family First winning the most seats with both the Coalition and the ALP reduced to minor party status because of the Perksgate Fraud and the scurrilous cover-ups of fraudulent activity by major party politicians.

Grave Digger #4. The 1st Senate suppression order: Submission 287

Submission 287 to the November 2005 Senate inquiry into the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 is still listed as “not yet available” on the submissions listing.

“Confidential.” In an undated letter posted to me in November 2005, the Senate’s Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee secretly classified submission 287, titled ‘Who are the real terrorists’, 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.

 This undated letter has absolutely nothing to do with ‘parliamentary privilege’ which is intended to be used when exposing corruption. Rather, it is all about the criminal misuse of this special privilege for the express purpose of concealing the death toll caused by breaching activity, especially the dreadful death toll caused by the Howard Government’s highly illegal enforcement of Breaching Performance Indicator Target Quotas, i.e. the breaching quotas referred to in the 1st Federal Police letter as “Quotagate.” In short, this letter is all above a Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice by the Senate’s prestigious Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee.

  1. Whilst the High Court may have ruled that the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 is legally valid, when that decision was made, the presiding justices were not told “the whole truth”, i.e. that the legislation was almost certainly the proceeds of a crime.
  2. A Dirty Deal – The Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 legislation.
  3. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Why would the Federal Police refuse to investigate Travelgate and Quotagate and the other issues put forward in my June 2004 complain?
  4. There had to be a pro quid pro deal in which the Federal Police received a benefit that far out-weighted the “gravity/sensitivity” of any investigation of the issues raised in the complaint.
  5. There was such a benefit to the Federal Police.
  6. In 2004, the Federal Police Commissioner, Mick Keelty, had made it quite clear that he wanted tough new laws to deal with the potential threat posed by world-wide (fundamentalist) terrorist activity. The ALP’s left wing politicians had made it quite clear that if the ALP won the 2004 election, then they would veto any such draconian legislation.
  7. The only chance that Mick Keelty had of getting tough new laws legislated was to ensure that John Howard won the 2004 election. In order to do that, the Travelgate Fraud and the Quotagate Murders complaints had to be ‘buried’ and as the 2 AFP documents make quite clear, they were. Since both of the AFP decisions were politically motivated and unlawful, they had to be buried. The 2004 decision was ‘covered’ by the 2005 LEGCON suppression order which prevented copying of the documents that are part of submission 287, but the 2009 decision was not, at least until March 2010.
  8. The problem with such selective and unlawful decision-making by the Federal Police is the long-term, unexpected consequences and broader implications such as:
  9.  Craig Thomson: Craig Thomson has been accused by FWA investigators of doing exactly what the 144 ‘Perksgate’ politicians allegedly did, i.e. fraudulently ripped off other people’s money to fund their 2007 election campaigns. Why should he be investigated but the other 144 not be investigated is a question that opens the door for Craig Thomson to use a “Manifest Ostensible Bias” defence, i.e. why pick on me and ignore all of them?
  10. Peter Slipper: The role of the Federal Police in this is of grave concern, especially now that new information suggests that the charges against Peter Slipper were a political put up job. The July 2004 AFP decision was about protecting the Howard Government whilst the 2009 had to protect rorting ALP politicians in order to protect the Coalition MPs involved in the Perksgate rort! However, investigating and prosecuting Peter Slipper is a-golden-opportunity for the AFP to ‘legally’ bring down the Gillard Government and get the Coalition back into government.

The possibility that the AFP has been acting in a politically partisan manner is perhaps of even greater concern than the Ultra Vires 2004 and 2009 decisions that under -minded the Rule of Law for it means the AFP has been acting to undermine a democratically elected government!

Grave Digger #5. The ECA’s ‘Roofgate’ suppression order.

Another “don’t copy, don’t distribute” Senate gag intended to prevent the general public from finding out about the death toll caused by the Howard Government’s illegal Breaching performance Indicator target Quotas.

If you really want proof of just how stupid a Rhodes Scholar can sometimes be, the March 2010 suppression order issued by the Senate’s ECA Committee when conducting an inquiry into the 4 ‘Roofgate’ fatalities is probably it.

  1.  Given that Tony Abbott had never reported any of the post-breaching fatalities that had occurred whilst he was the Employment Minister, criticizing Peter Garrett’s failure to report the death of Matthew Fuller and the other 3 ceiling insulation installers who were killed when installing insulation was an extremely hypocritical cheap shot.
  2. A cheap shot but a safe shot because Kevin Rudd and Co could hardly point out Tony Abbott’s failure to report the Breaching Performance Indicator Target Quotas fatalities without having to explain why he had also never made these fatalities public!
  3. As a result, Kevin Rudd was in a cleft stick and could only stay silent whilst Tony Abbott pilloried Peter Garrett. That was very astute politics that came very close to giving Tony Abbott the Prime Minister’s job in the 2010 election. Fortunately, in politics ‘almost’ is the proverbial miss by a mile when it comes to winning government.

Inquiry Term of Reference #3. “Any other matters.”

Proof of just how dumb Tony Abbott and his Coalition supporters can be at times can be found in the Terms of Reference for the ECA Committee inquiry into the ‘Roofgate’ disaster; Term of Reference #3 was “Any other, matters.”

  1. This was a muck raking catchall that was intended to rake up any other ‘muck’ that the Coalition and other Opposition parties, e.g. The Greens, could use against the Rudd Government.
  2. Unfortunately for the Coalition and The Greens, this particular Term of Reference backfired spectacularly because it opened the door to:
  3. “Any other fatalities caused by any other fraud in any other government program that was the responsibility of any other government minister in any other government.”
  4. In short, it threw the door wide open to exposing the fatalities that were the direct result of the Howard Government’s highly illegal Breaching Performance Indicator Target Quotas!
  5. Oops!
  6. Exposing these fatalities and that fraud was not what the inquiry was supposed to do and so the ECA’s Committee had no option but to find an excuse, no matter how flimsy, and use it to throw out the submission.
  7. The above letter from the ECA Committee is documentary evidence that that is precisely what the ECA Committee did, i.e. use a totally spurious ostensible reason to ditch the submission and apply a suppression order.
  8. The Bottom Line: This letter is yet another senate suppression order that was intended to pervert the course of Justice by once again misusing parliamentary privilege to conceal post-breaching fatalities.

 Grave Digger #6. The ACC refusal to investigate “The Dirty Deal”.

A dirty deal between the Federal Police and a government is a very serious threat to democracy and the only agency capable of dealing with corruption at this level is the Australian Crime Commission.


The Australian Crime Commission is yet one more crime fighting agency that ducked for cover when the issue the possibility that the Federal Police and the Howard Government had done a ‘dirty deal’ dropped into their lap.

 Analysis of the ACC Response: There are 3 key Conflict-of-Interest (C-o-I) points to consider other than NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard):

C-o-I #1: Okay, this is one heck of a hot topic for any crime fighter: the Federal Police may have done an illegal ‘dirty deal’ with the Howard Government that had resulted in federal legislation being the proceeds of a crime.

  1. What the ACC is saying in this letter is that they need the approval of the Federal Police Commissioner, Tony Negus, to investigate the officer who was the Assistant Federal Police Commissioner in 2004, i.e. Tony Negus! Can anyone see any conflict of interest in that scenario?

C-o-I #2: The alleged proceeds of the crime is the police powers contained in the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 legislation which just happens to legislation that all the police commissioners approve off and wish to retain. Loosing such powerful laws would be a serious blow to police operations across the nation and the commissioners have a vested interest in keeping this legislation.

C-o-I #3: Police solidarity. “It only takes one rotten apple to spoil the barrel” or to “Impugn by association” are -known phrases. Some welfare recipients rort the system and so the mass media now routinely refers to welfare recipients as “dole cheats” or “dole bludgers”. In the same manner, a political corruption investigation of the 2004 Federal Police leadership could cast doubt and undermine public confidence in the other police commissioners who are on the ACC board.

Given both the conflicts of interest involved in the standard operating procedure and the extreme gravity of the allegation, a special task force should have been set up to undertake an investigation of this sensitive allegation.

The question now is, where to from here? It looks like a challenge to the AFP decisions in the Federal Court may be the only solution if the “Silent Majority” remain silent.

Grave Digger documents 7 to 10,000+.

There are literally unnumbered thousands of pages of documents, most in the public domain or accessible under Freedom of information rules, that provides objective, empirical evidence of the cover up of breaching fatalities by politicians and public servants ever since the very first post-breaching fatality occurred.

“Irrelevant.”What I regard as the ‘jewel in the crown’ of the documents in my possession is a response from  the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee in which these deaths were, quite literally written off as “irrelevant” in an email that had I received from the EWRE Committee in January 2006. Incredibly, when asked to confirm this viewpoint on official EWRE Committee stationary, in March 2006, that is precisely what the committee, secretary did!

  1. If it turns out that the only way to force Centrelink to cough up the post-breaching fatalities statistics is to seek a Federal Court order I shall leave the Federal Court in no doubt that this writing off of post-breaching fatalities as ‘irrelevant’ is documentary evidence of the contemptible criminally negligent “Life unworthy of life” attitude towards welfare recipients that is held by some members of Federal Parliament.

If you are a welfare recipient (or a former welfare recipient), do you support the idea that you are Life unworthy of life” and that breaching triggered fatalities are “irrelevant”? If you think that these attitudes are reprehensible, you need to do far more than just read this blog and then forget it. You will need to get yourself into gear and be ‘proactive’ in kicking butt!

Some of the other ‘Grave Digger’ Government Agencies.

Hiding the appalling death toll caused by unconstitutional breaching activity has required the co-operation of numerous government agencies besides the DSS, Centrelink, the Department of Employment, the Federal Police, and of course, numerous Senate Committees. Some of these agencies other agencies include:

HREOC: (2003) The Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Committee which tacitly acknowledged that Breaching violated 23 basic human rights that are set out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights but declined to investigate because they were not allowed to do so. i.e. they are not allowed to look at Human Rights violations caused by the Breaching process! Anyone want to take that one for drive?

Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (OCO): (2004) The refusal of the Federal Police was referred to the OCO in August 2004 and in October 2004,after failing to acknowledge requests to discuss the AFP decision, the OCO rubber stamped the AFP’s unconstitutional and unlawful decision.

  1. It should be noted that requests to discuss these issues were ignored by the OCO ‘investigators’.
  2. Was this another case of NIMBY?

Australian National Audit Office (ANAO): 2004 and 2009. Twice the issue of rorting politicians was referred to the ANAO and twice the ANAO said that it was not their problem; it was the job of the Federal Police to investigate!

  1. Check Agent Pearce’s email and you will see that he had inferred that it was the ANAO’s job!
  2. This buck-passing between t these two government agencies effectively ensured that these fraudulent activities were never investigated.

Federal Office of Attorney-General’s Office (OAG): (2011). Assistant Secretary Matt Hall who handles the Human Rights portfolio in the OAG will not even talk to me on the phone about post-breaching fatalities or the refusal of the AFP to investigate these fatalities.

  1. Just as the ANAO buck-passed to the AFP, Matt Hall tried to buck-pass the problem to HREOC but, as mentioned above, been there done that; got the bruises to prove it.
  2. What I did learn was that, incredibly, despite anti-vilification laws and sexual discrimination laws being introduced way back in 1975, Socio-Economic Vilification, i.e. welfare bashing, by the mass media is not unlawful.
  3. If you are a welfare recipient, you are fair game which is the mass media never refers to “welfare recipients” but instead calls you “dole cheats”, “rorters” and “welfare bludgers”, etc. (Check previous blogs for further details.) Which brings me to the next bunch of grave diggers.

Australian Communications & Media Authority (ACMA): (April 2012).

ACMA report #2780 is a rock solid 100% pure ‘grave digger’ document.

In 2011 I filed complaints against SAS 7 (a 7 Network station) alleging socio-economic vilification and aiding and abetting Centrelink to rip off welfare recipients by concealing the 6 Week Rule when falsely claiming that welfare recipients allegedly ‘owed’ Centrelink $3 Billion. (See the 6 Week Rule blog posting.)

  1. I also alleged that SAS 7 had violated Felony Murder provisions contained in South Australia’s ancient (1935) Consolidated Criminal Law Act.
  2. Since these latter 2 points involved alleged violations of criminal laws the ACMA should have conducted a criminal investigation (similar to the FWA investigation of Craig Thomson and the Health Services Union) under Clause 7 (1) (h) of Section 2 of the Broadcasting Services Act.
  3. The ACMA tried to sweep these allegations under the carpet by not conducting an ‘in-the-field’ criminal investigation under the above mentioned statute law but by conducting an in-house (don’t talk the plaintiff or witnesses) ‘investigation’ under Clause 1.9.6 of the self-imposed Commercial Television Broadcasters Code of Practice.
  4. That decision is now being appealed to the OCO which initially rejected the appeal, but faced with the possibility of a Federal court challenge, is now reviewing ACMA Report #2780.

ACMA Report #2729 (May 2012) was the 2nd response from the ACMA to my welfare bashing allegations and it is a truly despicable and cruel report that has also been referred to the OCO for appeal.

  1. Anti-vilification laws and recent court decisions, e.g. the Eackot class action, have a “Zero Tolerance” reaction trigger level when it comes to vilification.
  2. However, when it comes to Socio-Economic Vilification by the mass media, the ACMA uses an absolutely appalling reaction trigger level of “INTENSE”.
  3. Forget “zero tolerance”, Weak, Mild, Strong or even Severe vilification; the minimum standard required to get action from the ACMA is “INTENSE”.
  4. Even worse, the emotionally traumatic impact of this vilification, whilst it was totally unacceptable in the Eackot court case, does not count one iota with the ACMA.
  5. Why is this so? Because they put the broadcast media’s code of practise ahead of statute law and court decisions!
  6. Now you know why the “Silent Majority” does not care what happens to you if you are a welfare recipient.
  7. Viewers and readers can be fed a truckload of vile, defamatory welfare bashing hate and the ACMA ‘co-regulators’ will not lift a finger to stop them.

Ponder this –the decision tree ‘domino’ effect that leads to disasters:

If any one of these agencies had done their job properly and forced Centrelink to disclose the post-breaching fatalities, Tony Abbott’s probably would not have been in a position to block the measures that would have probably prevented the two recent refugee boat sinking’s.

  1. For example, had HREOC demanded that Centrelink hand over the post-breaching fatalities data in 2003, the Federal Police would not have had to investigate the Quotagate Murders and that would have meant that…
  2. I am sure that you can follow the logic from that point onwards?


Internet Justice for welfare recipients: – Don’t just get mad, get compensated AND boot out those responsible for ripping you off! Network and make those responsible for the humanitarian disaster caused by breaching legislation accountable for their ideology driven stupidity! Collectively, you have enough voting power to prevent any political party from forming a majority government and you should be using that powerr, not throwing it away by refusing to vote, voting informal or by ‘idiot voting’.

(USA readers – please note that voting is compulsory in Australia and we have a very complex preferential voting system which passes 2nd, 3rd, 4th votes etc on until one candidate gets 50% + 1 of the preferential votes and wins the ‘seat’ in the federal parliament. 80 candidates can mean 80 preference votes or a 1 vote ‘above-the-line ‘idiot vote’  which is a short-hand vote according to predetermined political party preferences. Mega complex voting!)

  1. Been breached and want Justice or did a member of your family die after being breached and you want something done about that now that you know that breaching was/is unconstitutional?
  2. The secret of success if you are one of those people is to use the Internet, Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube is to network.
  3. Do vent steam or even whinge about Centrelink if it relieves your stress but use the Internet to do much more.
  4. Network with others in the same boat and see if you can form big groups, e.g. 10 – 20 or more, and group-talk to lawyers about compensation for the violation of your constitutional rights. S
  5. Somewhere out there amongst all of the nation’s lawyers is one lawyer who is smart enough to realize that the documents that you have seen in this blog are part of the key to what could become a viable multi-billion dollar class action.
  6. “PRO BONO” is the word you need to discuss with lawyers, i.e. they take your class action “in the public interest” and don’t charge you a fee but they may take a percentage of any compensation awards.
  7. At $4.3 million per “irrelevant” breaching fatality, that could quickly amount to mega bucks so if you can find a family that lost someone to breaching through suicide, stroke, heart attack, asthma attack, etc, then the odds of a lawyer picking up the case Pro Bono go up significantly.

Plan B: Alternately, check out the advice given to me by an official from the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman that is in the last blog that I posted, i.e. (as a group) contact a university lecturer and ask how you may be able to seek justice.

Plan C: On May 12th 2012, I emailed the Federal Police and requested that they rescind the 2004 decision and investigate the Travelgate fraud and the Quotagate Murders.

  1. So far I have had no response which means that this time they do not intend to put documentary evidence into hands that proves that they are breaking the law.
  2. However, if lots of welfare recipients and members of families of those killed by the breaching quotas also demand an investigation, then they just might be persuaded to actually do what they took an oath (and our tax money) to do, and uphold the law.

Victims of Crime compensation: For this to happen, the Federal Police must investigate “Quotagate”.

  1. Once the fraud is exposed, any of the more than 900,000 victims of this scam can then apply for both Restitution OR victims of crime compensation for this fraudulent activity.
  2. It may also open the door for anyone else who has been breached to seek victims of crime compensation.
  3. Note: Such an investigation will also open the doors to large class actions. 2 years ago the WA Government paid $4.3 million in compensation for an unintended death in custody.
  4. It seems logical to me that $4.3 million should be the starting point for negotiating compensation to families of victims whose deaths were officially deemed to be so “irrelevant” that they were not even worth DSS and Centrelink officials bothering to count them with the aid of a taxpayer-funded multi-million dollar mainframe computer which could have done it in a couple of billionths of a second!

Plan D: Vote Smart: Welfare recipients command enough votes to decide who wins any federal or state election!

It’s crazy but 100% true! So many people have been breached that if they all Vote Smart, neither the ALP nor the Coalition can win a federal election.

Not voting or deliberately voting informal is really dumb because it keeps the politicians who support breaching in $1,000 a day jobs that you help to pay for! If you want to dump these politicians out of those jobs, then you need to VOTE THEM OUT by voting smart.

  1. That means voting for independents and minor parties first and leaving the ALP and the Coalition until last, i.e. if there are 8 candidates, then the ALP and the Coalition get numbers 7 and 8.
  2. If you Idiot Vote by voting ‘1’ above the line on the big Senate ballot paper, stop doing it and VOTE BELOW THE LINE. If there 80 candidates, make sure that the ALP and the Coalition get votes 69 -80. Spread your critical votes 1 6 (which are each worth about $1 Million to each of the 6 winners), around the minor parties and independents with no more that 2 votes for any one political party.
  3. Voting below the line may take several minutes but think about this; it may take weeks to count all of your votes and instead of getting just one Idiot Vote, since every one of your votes must be counted, 80 candidates means 80 votes, not just one when you vote below the line.
  4. Your Senate vote is worth $6 million and when you give that sort of money away, shouldn’t you do it very carefully?
  5. Think about how powerful that makes you at the ballot box? You get to decide who gets the $1,000 a day job. ($1,500 a day for whoever gets the Prime Minister’s job!) Can you understand why the ALP and the Coalition are desperate to have you Idiot Vote by voting according to their “How to vote” election guides.

Notice to previous readers of this blog posting: The letter from the Ombudsman’s Office has been deleted and is relisted as Grave Digger document #22 at

It is probably going to take either a Federal Court order or a huge outcry of protest from welfare recipients to get at the truth about just how many welfare were murdered as a result of the Breaching Performance Indicator Target Quotas? Once the precise number of fatalities is known, then and only then, will we be in a position to determine an answer to that question.

Note: the ‘short-hand’ URL for this blog page is:

Please: spread the word because the more people who read this blog and express their outrage, the better for everyone including those who don’t know that ignoring the unconstitutional breaching laws is eventually going to cost them big time compopayments if they continue to do nothing about these unconstitutional laws and unlawful decisions made by politicians bureaucrats  and the Federal Police.

Ron Medlicott. GDA (Ag) Dip T, Cert FLM.  (Christian advocate of welfare rights.)

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

2 Responses to Senate Secrets #1: Senate classified documents in this blog reveal how breaching fatalities were hidden from the public.

  1. Chris says:

    You need to get this into the main stream media best way stand out front of sunrise with a sign or post up on telegraph poles around centerlink offices I was breached and was committing crime just to feed myself I couldn’t believe it after how much tax I have payed in my life would love to help your cause my email is thanks for this info Chris

  2. Ivi says:

    Ron I have just discovered these inspired blogs and it will take me a while to catch up, but big thumbs up for an advocate for the seemingly ‘voiceless’ in society. What I did want to comment on was your comment on Tony Abbott being a sociopath. I have watched him in interviews and TV- some on You Tube are just scary. One of my pet interests is in sociopaths, after unfortunately having to deal with some, and I have also in my opinion, picked him for one, making me feel quite sick to the stomach at the thought of him being elected to be Prime Minister. The book ‘Snakes in Suits’ can help open the eyes of those not quite aware of what this really means, the scenario disastrous. Going by reactions I have observed it seems the public does not fully trust him and I think there is a public consciousness of something NQR- and rightfully so in my opinion.

    I also was thinking hard about the disaster that is Single Parenting Payment recipients being forced onto Newstart when their youngest child turns 8. Is this a case discrimination against persons based on marital status, considering now many couples are given a hefty sum for mothers that go on maternity leave (and partner payments too available) – are mothers that are single on the PP (and in work – many are) also entitled to maternity leave at the same rate??
    If you have written about this please point me to the relevant blog 🙂
    Is there a case for the Anti- Discrimination Board seeing as single parents are so prejudiced against financially and it can be argued socially, due to many being forced to live on the poverty line. Are there advocates for cases like this?
    And while I’m thinking about it, the seeming inability for Child Support services to be unable to collect $1000s CS owed by many partners to their ex spouse and children. Its like they wash their hands off of it, if its just too hard to chase up. I have now heard of women taking matters into their own hands and successfully taking their ex’s to court for financial abuse.
    Anyway, these are just some thoughts that I think well worth raising.
    All the best

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s