Beyond Devil’s Dust: The secret minutes of the meeting with safety inspectors that officially never happened!

“But then I started to realize; it’s a lot bigger than that. I think that’s the problem you see. This thing is so huge; you just can’t get your head around it. And so people ignore it instead. But we need to make them look, even if they don’t like what they see!” (Bernie Banton in the documentary drama Devil’s Dust.)

Bernie was spot on, but even he had no idea of just how big, how evil this issue is. As the secret minutes of the meeting that officially never happened indicate, the evil of asbestos was, and still is, a massive humanitarian disaster that has corrupted governments, bureaucrats, business executives and, worst of all, our nation’s criminal justice system.

Just 9% of the nation’s population lives in South Australia, but if predictions are correct, 33% of all asbestos fatalities with occur in that state!

Clearly, if these predictions are accurate then unique, unknown factors that do not apply in the rest of the nation are at work in South Australia. Read the minutes and form your own conclusions, but before you do, be aware of the context in which this meeting took place.

  1. We all know that state and territory governments never have enough money to meet all the demands of their budgets.
  2. During the last 25 years of the 20th century, the South Australian  Government’s budget crept ever closer to the precipice of bankruptcy.
  3. The South Australian Education Department (hereafter referred to as DECS) soaked up 30% of the state’s annual budget.
  4. Despite this huge annual expenditure, the budget for school safety and maintenance slid further into the red at the rate of about $250,000 per week and by 1992 there was a massive $230 MILLION shortfall in funding that even a change of government would be unable to fix.
  5. As the news reports that follow the DLI minutes make quite clear, in 2002, the government of the day was still struggling to catch up.
  6. Basically, what these minutes reveal is how bureaucrats appear to have bought the government desperately needed TIME in which to shut down and bulldoze the worst affected schools, without of course revealing the real reason for closing the schools.
  7. However, there is no such thing as free lunch and when you buy time, there is always a huge cost and someone eventually foots the ‘bill’.
  8. In this case the cost may well be the fact that some of the 33% of the nation’s asbestos victims living in South Australia, attended the wrong school at the wrong time and have, or will, foot the bill with their lives!
  9. Their exposure to asbestos had absolutely nothing to do with industrial contamination or home renovations; the problem was South Australia’s  Killer Classrooms!
  10. Did James Hardie management know about the asbestos problem in the state’s schools? Is it reasonable to assume that they were aware of the potential asbestos problems in every state and were aware of some of the  ways in which governments and state bureaucrats strove to sweep this issue under the carpet in order to retain power?
  11. Such knowledge would be a  useful security blanket or hedge against the day that the asbestos epidemic rebounded upon James Hardie’s management; one more reason why they could send the message to the major political parties that “people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.”


 NOTE: Re-typed from a photocopy  of the original document with many of the blank lines in the original document being deleted.

Minutes -forming Enclosure to



Following initial audits carried out in this Region from the

<Content deleted >                   list of <deleted       >sections of the public sector, the

Education Department has raised questions on requirements of certain aspects of our demands

following <deleted           > by Inspectors on <deleted         > noted in some of the schools.

One particular area of their concern has been the necessity to have in place where applicable an asbestos register.  Their claim was that they had five years to comply.

A meeting was held on Wednesday 23 December 1992 in the Conference Room on the 5th level of Natwest building to discuss these issues.

 In attendance were:

Gerry Styles – Asbestos Management Unit SACON

Laurie Phillips – Assistant Director (School Building Service) Education Department Brian March – Education Department

Trevor Roach – Manager Facilities School Building Services Education department

and for the Department of Labour

Manager – Regional Services

Manager – Mineral Fibres

Regional Manager – Southern

Prosecutions Officer

2 Inspectors Occupational Health, Safety & Welfare – Southern Regional Office

 The ensuring 2 hour discussion outlined the basis for the audit the requirement for compliance and a general understanding of the Education Departments situation and need for compliance given financial constraints.

 A list of the schools to be audited has been sent to both Laurie Phillips and Gerry Styles so that they will be aware that these premises may seek a higher priority should deficiencies be noted or a need for assessment for asbestos be required.

 Dlbl-l 5

 (Page 2 of the minutes:)

From this Departments point of view the contacts for queries should be:

For the Education Department – Brian March

For SACON Asbestos Related matters – Gerry Styles

 Contact details are attached.

 D L Blacker

Regional Manager – Southern

 4th January 1993


Dldl-l 6



Godwin Grech, a senior Treasury official faked the “UTEGATE” (OzCar) email that he hoped would bring down the Rudd Government and so further evidence to support my claim that the minutes are real is required. The 1st and most obvious question to ask is, how did I get them?

29th January 1993: “Teacher warned for speaking out.”

Yes, I was warned but it was the Regional Director who went looking for a new job. There was no way that DECS could risk an Industrial Court action for either Unreasonable Dismissal or for threatening a worker who was raising OHS&W issues, especially not with the documents, videos, photographs and forensic samples in my possession. DECS officials were looking at a $500,000 fine and up to 5 years jail time, especially if the forensic samples were tested!

  1. My actions in raising serious OHS&W issues over a period of nearly 7 years, really annoyed some senior DECS and SACON officials, the teachers union and even some of my fellow teachers, but the spin-off was that a senior DLI official noted my actions, and when the opportune time came, an edited copy the minutes of the meeting that never happened wound up in my possession.
  2. For the record, some of the tests mentioned in the last paragraph were rigged. lesss than 24 hours before the tests the DECS Director-General banned me from the classroom and I immediately countered with a threat to seek an injunction that would have held up the tests until the Director-General explained his actions in the Industrial Court. He backed down and upon entered the classroom very early the next day, I discovered that some of the tests had been rigged to achieve a pre-determined outcome.
  3. Upon discovering this that I finally spat the dummy and left DECS.
  4. It’s so easy to give advice in a blog and write stuff like “Do justice”, but the in-the-crucible  reality is that doing so is gob-smackingly hard to do. The mental and emotional pressure and strain is like being in combat, and the temptation to cut and run just gets stronger as time goes by. 
  5. Eventually, in violation of both my professional responsibility and my Christian faith, I bailed out and abandoned my students. I guess in military terms, “I deserted my post in the face of the enemy!”
  6. Our actions often have unintended, unforeseen consequences; for example, had I stuck to my guns and lived up to the “Do justice” mantra, it is quite possible that the 2003 asbestos disaster at Ascot Park Primary School would never have happened, so please, don’t thank me for posting this stuff on the web! Christianity is about 2nd chances, and this “Ron’s space” blog site is part of my 2nd chance to redeem myself by finally doing what is right by my former students, South Australia’s asbestos victims, and the millions of welfare recipients who all share a common problem, i.e. they have been well and truly ‘shafted’ by the system and by those who prefer not to know the truth.
  7. It is also my very practical way of saying SORRY for doing a runner.
  8. For some reason, I was not asked to hand over my own files on the safety problems in the classrooms at Cleve, perhaps because DECS officials did not want to come within a country mile of them, an oversight which may ultimately prove to be a costly error for South Australian taxpayers.

30th January 1993: “Schools fail test on safety.”

  1. This was the page one headline the next day. The desperate need of both the Arnold Government and DECS/SACON officials was to stall, stall, and  stall some more! By stalling on procedural document processing and appropriate site supervisor safety training, that precious commodity,TIME, was bought.
  2. Where The Advertiser goofed big-time was in not following up on the practical aspects that were implicit in the failure of DECS officials to meet minimum safety requirements in a timely manner. Fast forward to 2002, and the massive scale of the OHS&W budget blow-out meant that little had been done get on top of the problem of serious safety hazards in schools.
  3. Check out the following news article from Adelaide’s only Sunday newspaper, The Sunday Mail.

“Schools fails test on safety.”

This is a classic text book case of the more that things change, the more they stay the same! Check out the exposed list on the right hand side of the article. Many off these types of hazards had been known for decades or more and yet in 2002, 16 years after the South Australian Occupational Health, Safety & Welfare Act was drafted into law, these sorts of risks still existed in schools.

  1. Radioactive isotopes. (Hello 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor meltdown! It is hardly as if there was not any public awareness of the dangers posed by this material!)
  2. Hydro-carbon poisons.
  3. Poisons and oxidizing chemicals stored on top of each other.
  4. Keep in mind that this sort of crap  was ‘supposed’ to have been removed from DECS school way back in 1990.
  5. The reality is that in South Australia, there was no shortage of killer classrooms, and one of them was mine.

The DECS/Health Commission public advisory notice published in the Cleve Area School newsletter in 1991.

Surely it is a fair and reasonable assumption that if DECS and Health Commission experts express the opinion that there is no danger, then obviously there is absolutely no danger at all?

  1. Note the timeline; the exposure occurred in 1987 and 1998 and the notification was being given at the end of 1991 when many of the Year 12 students who had been exposed were no longer attending the school, or even living with 500 kilometres of the school.
  2. There are a couple of not so ‘minor’ problems with the warning about POTENTIAL safety hazards in this particular instance.
  3. No matter how ‘expert’ the experts may be, their OPINIONS can all too easily get blown away by the hard facts. (A point to keep in mind with the personal opinions that I express in this blog – put all things to the test.)
  4. Expert opinions given by government bureaucrats may in fact be nothing more than a parroting of government PR that is more about avoiding accountability than in confronting the reality of the situation.
  5. As with asbestos, as time passes, the “POTENTIAL” hazards cease to be  “POTENTIAL” and can become all too real!
  6. Which brings us to the objective evidence that highlights just one of the more than 100 safety problems that I was dealing with in my classroom, a composite Technical Studies’ workshop.

The AMDEL Report.

Okay, what exactly are we looking at here?

  1. The AMDEL report is a lab analysis of a dust sample taken from the Cleve Area School Technical Studies classroom shortly after the Technical studies coordinator had died of a sporting activity’ induced heart attack that triggered a fatal coma.
  2. The sample was placed in 2 sealed containers and one was provided to DECS who passed it on to the SA Health Commission, whilst the other was provided to the teachers union. (The South Australian Institute of Teachers (SAIT) – now part of the Australian Education Union.)
  3. The SA Health Commission never revealed the actual results of the sample provided whilst SAIT simply filed the sealed sample in a filing cabinet.
  4. In mid 1991, I requested that the SAIT sample be returned to me, and as the AMDEL report makes quite clear, I footed the bill for the forensic analysis. When reading these results keep in mind that this was ultra-fine inspirable dust, i.e. the stuff that goes deep into your lungs, that had settled on horizontal surfaces within the classroom.

The “As” is that well know dietary additive, ARSENIC. Eat almost any fish and many vegetables and you will be eating micro amounts of Arsenic. Because of that dietary fact, the official line was that the Arsenic in the classroom was harmless because it is a compound found in a normal person’s diet.

  1. Fair dinkum! That was the logic behind the ‘no problems’  advise from the SA Health Commission’s anything but impartial experts.
  2. Have you ever heard of Arsenic being used to poison someone? In Nano-sized amounts Arsenic is not toxic but in large amounts it is lethal. in between, it is ‘merely’ carcinogenic, hence the POTENTIAL health risk in the notification.
  3. The problem is that the maximum safe limit, the Threshold Limiting Value (TLV) is 0.05 parts per million or 0.05 ppm. Grab a calculator and divide 17PPM by 0.05 and you get 340, i.e. the Arsenic level was 340 times more than the TLV!
  4. Arsenic is also a carcinogenic and so you get the following continuum:
  5. Dietary Nutrient — — Carcinogenic Sunstance —– Lethal Poison.
  6. Where exactly on this line does a daily dose of 17ppm of Arsenic fit?
  7. If you thought that the Arsenic was bad, check out the other reading.

The “Cr” stands for Chromium which is also a potential cause of Cancer and other major health problems as well as being a known cause of adverse DNA changes. Like Arsenic, it also has a TLV of 0.05 ppm. Again, hit the calculator and divide 360 by 0.05 and you get a whooping dirty great big figure of 7,200. i.e. the Chromium level was 7,200 times the maximum safe limit for Chromium.

  1. ERIN BROCKOVICH – Did you ever watch the real life movie about Erin Brockovich, a legal clerk  who in 1993 researched and put together what was at the time the largest successful direct-action law suit in US history, the Hinkley Contaminated Groundwater Case.
  2. In 1996, a court awarded a massive damages payout of $333 Million. (Her grateful employer kindly paid her a bonus of $2 Million for her dedicated effort and today Erin Brockovich is no longer a legal clerk.)
  3. The level of chromium in the Erin Brockovich case was 1.9ppb. That is 1,9 parts per BILLION, not parts per million which is a 1,000 times less.
  4. Using the same measurement terms; the Chromium level at Hinkley was between 1.9 and 3.3 parts per billion whilst the Chromium at Cleve was at a ‘slightly higher’ level of 360,000 parts per billion.
  5. The SA Health Commission view at the time was was  that the Chromium in the CCA treated timber was insoluble and as it was ‘only’ Pentavalent Chromium, not Hexavalent Chromium, that it was completely harmless.
  6. The problem is whilst Pentavalent Chromium may have been pressure soaked into the timber during the preservation treatment process, there is absolutely no guarantee that that is what came out the timber during the machining process.
  7. Machined using portable electric routers operating at 22,000 revs per minute, this high  speed cutting action produces intense heat at the interface between the cutting blades and the timber. This heat results in chemical changes to both the preservatives and the other chemicals in the timber. Some chemical oxidize whilst others de-oxidize.
  8. The end result is that some of what comes out in the inspirable dust clouds thrown up by the router blades is definitely NOT what was in the timber before the machining process began.

It is highly possible that both the Arsenic and the Chromium underwent chemical changes that made them far more toxic than the ‘relatively’ benign toxins in the original CCA formula.Keep in mind that ‘ordinary’ wood smoke contains about 200 chemicals, many of which are in themselves so toxic that people who inhale smoke often collapse and die with seconds! Toss in a bundle of artificially manufactured toxins (CCA) and what comes off the router blades cannot be classified a harmless.

  1. The Health Commission reassurances were based upon generic chemical input data, not the actual contents of the dust sample that they were provided with, and the failure to specifically relate their reassurances to their tested sample is highly disturbing.
  2. How much of the 17ppm Arsenic  was the potentially lethal Arsenic Tri-oxide and similarly, how much of the 360ppm Chromium was in fact the ultra-dangerous Hexavalent Chromium, a compound that is both carcinogenic and known to cause a whole host of genetic abnormalities?
  3. I never asked for, and never paid for, the tests to be that specific, and the only certainty about the SA Health Commission reassurances is that they are not telling what the chemical compound breakdown was in their half of the sample.
  4. Does that official secrecy and bumph have a familiar ring in your ear?
  5. Fast forward to 2012 and it is now know that when sitting on CCA treated timbers, body perspiration can leach the CCA out of the wood and cause cancer and many other well documented health problems.
  6. As a consequence, CCA treated products are, just like asbestos, now regarded as POTENTIALLY hazardous products containing a POTENTIALLY hazardous substance and consequently CCA treated products are banned from South Australian schools.
  7. As any victim of asbestos or cigarette smoking knows all to well, the POTENTIAL health risk ceases to be POTENTIAL when the known health problems are clinically detected. From that moment on, the risk is REAL, not ‘potential’.

ASBESTOS contamination at Cleve Area School:

  1. I have not the slightest doubt that based on activities undertaken in the main Technical Studies workshop at Cleve Area School, and in similar classrooms all around the state, students WERE directly exposed to inspirable asbestos dust, e.g. sanding down the blue asbestos tops of the soldering benches as part of the end of year annual workshop clean up that was undertaken by Year 8 and Year 9 students in the last few days of the fourth term.
  2. I would in fact be extremely surprised if the sealed samples taken from the my classroom at Cleve in 1987 and 1993 and which are still in my possession, were found to be free of asbestos.
  3. In 1988 I made a conscious, professional decision to see that the risks faced by my students were removed.
  4. That meant refusing to transfer to another school, It probably would have been a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire.
  5. It also turned out that my boat rocking was most unpopular, not only with DECS and SACON but also with the teachers union. A thorough check of the fortnightly journal distributed by SAIT will reveal that given the choice of going for a pay rise or of protecting students and teachers in unsafe classrooms, the union leadership opted for pay rises.
  6. A really diligent search of the teacher journals published in the late 1980s and early 1990s will eventually uncover a union leadership 14 point priority list in which, from memory, the number one item was a pay rise whilst work site safety languished at number 12.
  7. Tucked away in one of my old teacher’s journals is even a record of an incident in which the union field worker blasted me in the school staffroom in front of other teachers for raising the safety issues which the union leadership had opted to bury!

Why was the classroom so heavily contaminated by the machining of CCA treated timber. Surely the classroom dust extraction system would have removed the airborne dust from classroom environment?

  2. There was an in-classroom spray booth which has had an overhead extractor that dumped unfiltered dust into the school environment.
  3. The  arc welders at the opposite end of the workshop had wall mounted fume extractors but when it came to inspirable sawdust from machining timber:
  4. Just 3 of the many woodwork machines in the classroom had old portable dust extractor units that were not equipped with HE-PA filters , just coarse cotton dust bags, and so they constantly pumped inspirable dust back into the classroom.
  5. When, as a result of my lobbying, more of these units, with HE-PA filters, were installed they were tested and found to be “next door to useless” with airflow rates of 0.5 meters per second and the minimum airflow rate required was 10 metres per second, i.e. cheap, ineffective junk was used to replace clapped out junk!
  6. DECS simply did not have the money to buy a real dust extractor system and so sub-standard token extraction units were installed that gave the appearance of doing the job whilst actually creating a safety risk by not removing the inspirable dust.
  7. When tested in 1993, the only way that these dust extractors could pass the test was to rig the test! The dust bags should have been tested at 30-40% capacity in accordance with national testing standards. Instead, the dust bags were removed, turned inside out and then vacuum cleaned!
  8. Why bother with impartial, empirical NATA testing standards when with your own testing ‘standards’, you can pass any test that you set yourself?


When government experts offer opinions about safety risks, demand proof that backs up those opinions. The lesson to be learnt from the Killer Classrooms in South Australia is that the unsubstantiated opinions of experts on the government payroll are not always as impartial and as accurate as we would like to believe.

  1. Decades ago, the SA Health Commission tested soil and groundwater in reclaimed industrial sites at sited in the inner Adelaide suburbs of Hendon, Bowden and Brompton.
  2. Being inner suburbs, the reclaimed land had a high value for building villas and town houses, plus housing development in the area meant jobs, always an important issue for governments.
  3. Assurances were given that the land was suitable for residential use, but over the last 5 years testing, or the 30 year release of the original test results, has created a storm of community angst and outrage.
  4. In the Bowden-Brompton area, the ground is so contaminated with Arsenic and other toxic chemical that parents have been advised not to let their children even play on the lawns and home grown fruit and vegetables can not be eaten!

In final analysis, the essence of truth is proof. In the absence of proof, it is safer to assume that you are being told what the government wants you to hear rather than what you need to hear.

Getting your head around the nationwide asbestos problem is bad enough, but how do you take on board the cupidity of politicians who sought to cling to power by hiding safety problems in school classrooms?

  1. Perhaps the answer to that lies in an ancient South Australian law that politicians had been meaning to expunge for years but somehow never got around to actually doing so.
  2. In the Consolidated Criminal Law Act (1936) is a Felony Murder statute that was revived in 2006 to prosecute a teenager, Josiah Finch, on the charge of Felony Murder.
  3. In simple terms, any death that results from the commission of crime is a Felony Murder, crime that carries a mandatory 25 year jail sentence with at least a 60% non-parole period.
  4. In Adelaide in August 2012 a 71 year old man, Giuseppe Corbo, was charged with 3 counts of Reckless Endangerment; a month later the charges were upgraded to Manslaughter. Mr Corbo allegedly failed to comply with the state’s strict gun laws and as a consequence one of his guns was allegedly taken by his mentally ill son and used to kill 3 people and wound 2 police officers.
  5. In this instance, 3 counts of reckless Endangerment apparently amounts to manslaughter, perhaps due to criminal negligence. The question to be considered is just how many Reckless Endangerment fatalities do you need before you are looking at the crime of Felony Murder.
  6. That question is relevant for the politicians and bureaucrats who failed to prevent students and school staff, and visiting parents and suppliers, from being exposed to asbestos.
  7. On Peachy Road, approximately half a kilometre from the Elizabeth Shopping Centre, in the middle of the City of Playford is the former James Hardie asbestos products manufacturing plant.
  8. Knowing the dangers posed by asbestos, did James Hardie’s management show criminal recklessness and endanger people by building that facility in the middle of what was a rapidly growing satellite city intended to house some 50,000 people?
  9. Was the building of that plant in such close proximity to a major shopping centre and residential area, a Criminal act of Reckless Endangerment?
  10. I don’t know when the plant was shut down, but I do know that my younger step-brother and my step-father worked a few hundred metres away at the Exide battery making plant and when the wind blew from the south-west, the asbestos dust from the Hardie plant would blow into their factory and onto their cars.
  11. Is the location of that factory one of the other reasons why it is estimated that some 20,000 people in South Australia will die from asbestos related diseases?

If exposing school children to asbestos contaminated classrooms or building an asbestos manufacturing plant in close proximity to a shopping centre and residential areas is Reckless Endangerment, it may be possible to hold Jamies Hardie management accountable under that ancient Felony Murder law for this is a crime that has NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

  1. Of course, for that to happen, someone is going to have to test that law and it is London to brick that it will not be either the current Weatherall Government.
  2. Can anyone really see a current Labour government prosecuting members of a former Labour Government.
  3. Even if the current Weatherall Government was kicked out, the incoming Liberal government would be unlikely to prosecute because once Labour was turfed out of office in December 1993, the incoming government of Dean Brown maintained the code of silence!

Manifest Ostensible Bias.

It is self-evident that in order to successfully prosecute James Hardie executives for reckless endangering lives, it would also be necessary to prosecute the politicians and bureaucrats who failed to take action when action was required and thus allowed students in asbestos contaminated classrooms to be exposed for prolonged periods of time. Failing to so would allow any James Hardie executives who may be prosecuted to seek to have the charges dismissed on the grounds of Manifest Ostensible Bias.

  1. What the heck is is Manifest Ostensible Bias?
  2. One of the spin-offs from the Morris Inquiry into the deaths allegedly caused by Dr Jayant Patel’s surgical procedures at the Bundaberg Base Hospital was a complaint filed against Commissioner Morris in the Queensland supreme Court.
  3. Justice Moyniham’s determination in the Keating v Morris; Leck v Morris case resulted in a finding that the Commissioner, Mr Morris QC, had treated Mr Keating in a manner that was in stark contrast to the treatment  that Mr Morris demonstrated when he “favoured” other witnesses and their viewpoints, i.e. Commissioner Morris had demonstrated Manifest Ostensible Bias and as a consequence the report of the Commission was invalid.
  4. The inquiry was shut and a new commission of inquiry had to set up.
  5. Audi alteram partem  is a Latin term that translations into English as the right to fair hearing, a principle that also guarantees that anyone that James Hardie executives would have the opportunity to compare their actions and decisions with those of politicians and bureaucrats who may also have knowingly exposed people to asbestos hazards. If prosecuted, would they opt for the use of Manifest Ostensible Bias as a defense, i.e. why prosecute me but not them?
  6. For people who live elsewhere in Australia, let me ask you this question, do you think that what happened in South Australian schools did not also happen in parts of your state?
  7. If it did, what are the odds that the people who manufactured and sold this lethal material have detailed records that can be tabled in court?

Call me cynical if you like, but the chances of politicians willingly prosecuting former politicians is on the infinity side of Zero; there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that they would willingly do so. If there is the tiniest chance of prosecuting James Hardie executives under various states Criminal Recklessness laws or the SA Felony Murder law, it will have to either be a civil prosecution or alternately, someone facing prosecution is going to have given serious consideration to using a Manifest Ostensible Bias defense.

REALITY CHECKS: This thing is so huge; you just can’t get your head around it. And so people ignore it instead.”

That statement from Devil’s Dust is so spot on! Sometimes, what we are confronted with is so overwhelmingly unbelievable that we refuse to believe it and then do nothing. Check out the following examples:

(A) Cigarettes do not cause health problems said the tobacco companies.

(B) It is safe to build nuclear power stations on earthquake fault lines because we can build earthquake proof reactors said the Japanese nuclear power industry.

(C) Queensland’s Dr Death. A de-registered surgeon is appointed  the Director of Surgery at the Bundaberg Base hospital and when patients start dying, the Queensland health Minister(s), the Queensland health Service bureaucrats, and the Queensland Police Service all ignore the warnings given by whistle-blowers and concerned families. Who would have believed that?

(D) Fair Work Australia has Craig Thomson in their ‘gun sights’ for allegedly ripping off $70,000 from the Health Services Union in order to fund his 2007 federal election campaign. Prosecution may have seemed like a slam dunk hit but the 2009 report of the Auditor-General which revealed that 144 of the 188 members of parliament who were up for re-election in the 2007 federal election apparently funded their re-election campaigns by ripping off $4.64 Million from the $360 Million Parliamentary Entitlements Fund.   As the federal police email (Grave Digger document #3) which can viewed in the blog at 1-07-12   clearly reveals our fearless federal fuzz flatly refused to do so citing such trivial reasons as “gravity/sensitivity” and, the politicians have talked it over amongst themselves and so we don’t have to worry about it! Unbelievable, but true.

(E) “Centrelink does not collect ‘Post Breaching Terminal Outcome Statistics’ and is therefore unable to assist with your request for this information”?  This statement was made in correspondence written Centrelink’s Assistant Secretary Neil Skill in a letter dated 18th May 2010. In very clear parallels with the tobacco industry and the asbestos fatalities, for decades federal politicians and bureaucrats have concealed the death toll caused by unconstitutional breaching legislation. As a consequence this now secretly classified death toll continued to rise and rise and rise, etc. Whilst Tony Abbott was only too happy to criticize Peter Garrett for failing to report the death of Matthew Fuller and 3 other ceiling insulation installers to the Federal Parliament, the chilling reality is that Tony Abbott never reported any of the post-breaching fatalities that occurred during his tenure as the Employment Minister. Not only did he not report these fatalities, his solution to the problem of breaching triggered fatalities was to support the Howard Government’s attempt to double the breaching penalty from 13 weeks to 26 weeks. Unbelievable, totally unbelievable but true! Check out the other 5 Grave Digger documents that are posted in the above mentioned blog if you doubt me.

“But we need to make them look, even if they don’t like what they see!”

The alternative to making people look is finding people who need to see the truth and that means taking a totally different approach. Can anyone out there please tell  me the name of Dr Jayant Patel’s solicitor? Who knows, it is just possible that he may have client who at this time could use a really good Manifest Ostensible Bias defense.

Ronald Medlicott (Christian advocate of welfare justice.)

NOTE: If you have a friend how may want to read this blog, short-link URL  is:

Footnote: There is no such thing as free lunch, everyone pays one way or another.

Beth and Matt Redmond – Blessed be the name of the Lord. (A hymn.)

Blessed be Your name on the road marked with suffering
Though there’s pain in the offering, Blessed be Your name
Every blessing You pour out, I’ll turn back to praise
When the darkness closes in, Lord Still I will say

Blessed be the name of the Lord
Blessed be Your name
Blessed be the name of the Lord
Blessed be Your glorious name
You give and take away
You give and take away
My heart will choose to say
Lord, blessed be Your name.

Lord, blessed be Your name.

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

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