Senate Secrets #10: Centrelink vetos an Adminstrative Appeal in order to conceal the 6 Week rule rip-off!

“Centrelink does not collect ‘Post Breaching Terminal Outcome Statistics’ and is therefore unable to assist with your request for this information.”

The point that I made in my last blog posting was that Centrelink ALSO hides the 6 week Rule found in paragraph 1,237A of the Social Security Act.

In that blog I posted  copy of an email to Senator rachel siewert that outlined how Centrelink was ripping off a pensioner, “Harry”, who had provided Centrelink with the correct information and then been overpaid. A year later Centrelink discovered the mistake that had been made and demanded that the money be repaid. Sinmce the details are in my last blog I won’t recap them here but what am adding is new information given to me by harry in a recent conversation.

CENTRELINK UNILATERALLY VETOED HARRY’S ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL!

  1. They informed Harry that his appeal was “without merit” and therefore would not proceed with it.
  2. Can Centrelink do that?
  3. In one word, NO!
  4. Administrative appeals are a matter for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which is accountable to the Governor-General, not to Centrelink!
  5. This is a legal process in which Centrelink is simply a party to a legal  dispute, not the judge and jury and Centrelink officials have no legal right to cancel an administrative appeal.

The 1st and most obvious question is why would Centrelink cancel an appeal when they do not have the legal right to do so? The most obvious answer is that they did not want the ASdministrative Appeals Tribunal to find out that harry had been ripped off with and fraud covered up with lies and deceits.

The 2nd question is how could Harry’s administrative appeal have been vetoed by Centrelink? The simple andswer to that is that hios appeal was never forwarded to the Adminstrative appeals tribunal in the first place.

  1. Sadly, this is a case of history repeating itself.
  2. At the turn of the century when Tony Abbott was breaching unemployed people at the rate of 3 people per minute by allegedly illegally enforcing “Perforformance Indicator Targets”, i.e. Breaching Quotas, (See Grave Digger Document #7 at   http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-3K ) lodged appeals and na staggering 86% were upheld.
  3. The Centrelink management solution to this ultra-high rate of successful administrative appeals by welfare recipients was, according to Centrelink staff who secretly testified at the Independent Pearce Inquiry, to DELIBERATELY DELAY lodging the appeals for 6 weeks!

So, Centrelink management therefore has a lengthy and complex track record of deliberately Perverting the Course of Justice when it comes to administrative appeals, enforcing breaching quotas, the 2 decades long failure to comply with the 6 Week Rule, the failure to comply with the Privacy Principles in the Privacy Act and, worst of all, the failure to report breaching triggered fatalities which resulted in a continual increase in the number of fatalities.

At this stage I am trying to convince Harry to complain to both the Ombudsman and senator Siewert before notifying Centrelink of his intention to pursue the complaint. If he does do this, perhaps some of the centrelink administrators and CSO’s involved in the 6 Week Rule Scam may wind up in court. Ultimately, what Harry decides to do is his decision and that must be respected, even if he decided not to pursue a criminal investigation of Centrelink’s actions in ripping him off.

WHAT ABOUT YOU OR YOUR FRIENDS?

If you have been ripped off by Centrelink or if you know someone who was hit with a Centrelink letter of demand for repayment, you can do something using the informationprovided in these blogs.

  1. “I intend to fight this” is a good way to persuade Centrelink officials that trying to rip you off is a bad move and that they should back off!
  2. Don’t yell and argue. Just give Centrelink a copy of Senator Siewert’s letter which is in the previous blog along with A COPY of Centrelink’s letter of demand. (keep the original letter safe for it may be legal evidence of an attempt by Centrelink to defraud you and it will be destoyed if you habd it over.)

Ron Medlicott

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

3 Responses to Senate Secrets #10: Centrelink vetos an Adminstrative Appeal in order to conceal the 6 Week rule rip-off!

  1. Carolyn says:

    As i wrote on the previous blog, i’m going to fight a $8000 letter of demand for ‘overpayment’ from 3 years ago…. and i will tell other’s of this so that people know that they can fight this…. Thanks Ron

  2. Carolyn says:

    Hi Ron…. I thought that I would advise your followers here that I did exactly what you mentioned in your previous blog, and I WON….. I persisted and also contacted my federal member of parliament… and all money deducted from me WITHOUT MY PERMISSION OR NOTIFICATION was returned to me….. however, months later, I received an ‘amended’ statement for my tax return for 2012/2103….. for ‘owing’ them money… so I waited for another ‘amended’ statement to wipe that balance back to nothing….. therefore, (don’t yell at me) I didn’t put in a tax return last year…. I was on Centrelink for the whole year so for that financial year they are sitting on $210 of money that I asked them to take as tax from my Newstart Allowance….. This financial year however, I have been working, so I am dreading doing a tax return…. I used to be able to afford an accountant, but this year I will be attempting it myself and they can scratch their own heads at their own figures……. Anywho…. I’ve talked about the 6 week rule to a lot of people on facebook and I’ve offered help to some…. THANK YOU again for this blog…. if it wasn’t for you, they would have $8000 of my money that they didn’t deserve….. Hugs, Carolyn

    • yadnarie48 says:

      When you know your rights, you have POWER over those who try to abuse them.

      Please spread the word so that your friends can also be empowered to fight back.

      Have you read paragraph 51 (xxiiiA) of the constitution – that contains real power because:
      (A) “civil conscription” as in WORK FOR THE DOLE, is unconstitutional because dole payments CANNOT be linked to civil conscription.
      (B) “The provision of…” welfare benefits. Last year when the High Court ruled in ACCC vs TPG, the court looked at the “dominant message” of TPG advertising and rulked it was misleading. The “dominant message” of the word “PROVISION” is that the Federal Parliament MUST PROVIDE a welfare allowance to needy people. The constitution does not give politicians the power to DEPRIVE people of a welfare allowance, i.e. anyone who has been breached is entitled to both restitution (with compound interest) PLUS DAMAGES for the hardship caused by being unconstitutionally deprived of a welfare allowance.

      Breaching is also a serious violation of both Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights AND the International Convention on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of People.

      So again, my message is, SPREAD THE WORD so that people can be EMPOWERED.

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