“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!
- They informed Harry that his appeal was “without merit” and therefore would not proceed with it.
- Can Centrelink do that?
- In one word, NO!
- Administrative appeals are a matter for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which is accountable to the Governor-General, not to Centrelink!
- 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.
- Sadly, this is a case of history repeating itself.
- 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.
- 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.
- “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!
- 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.)