The role of Australia’s mass media regulations in the death of Jacintha Saldanha: Part 3a: The ‘other’ Buckingham Palace connection.

Hiding Breaching triggered fatalities was SO easy for bureaucrats

Hiding Breaching triggered fatalities was SO easy for bureaucrats

Did the Governor-General inform the Queen of these legislation triggered fatalities?

Did the Governor-General inform the Queen of these legislation triggered fatalities?

EXTRACT #1: Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Committee demanded to know the truth. If the truth is that the Queen knew of the series of suicides that eventually resulted in Jacintha Saldanha’s death, will he, or anyone else in the British ‘Establishment’. still want to know the truth?

EXTRACT #2: Like the Global Financial Crisis, Jacintha’s death is a stark, sobering reminder that there is a dark side to the free market economy; …Without a shadow of doubt, the most sobering lesson to be learnt from Jacintha’s death is that when Kym Williams made his “…market forces must trump the regulators” speech, he was basically placing anyone anywhere in the entire world in danger for the sake of corporate profits.

EXTRACT #3: It is a horrific thought, but in the final analysis Jacintha ‘s death was ‘just’ one of many suicides that were co-triggered by Australia’s mass media industry.

AUTHOR’S RECOMMENDATION: SKIM through this blog and read the inserted letters. If you are still interested after doing that, please SAVE the webpage to your computer and read it carefully when you have more time to evaluate the content. Finally, if you believe that it is appropriate, SHARE this blog posting short-link which is:


In Australia there is a culture of reckless indifference that has permeated the Federal Parliament, the Public Service and the nation’s predominantly right-wing leaning mass media, that poses a very serious threat to the nation’s most vulnerable. For political decision makers, bureaucrats, and the mass media, there is an almost sociopathic disassociation from the Cause and Effect consequences of their decisions and/or actions, especially when people respond as Jacintha Saldanha did and take their own lives! The “Centrelink does not collect…” statement and the Vice Regal letter above both typify this sometimes callous indifference to the plight of those who are forced by circumstance to live below the poverty line. On 4th December  2012, this recklessness, perhaps spurred on by News Ltd.’s CEO, Kym William’s, recent “…trump the regulators” speech, jumped the nation’s boundaries via the telephone system and the ultimate cost of the 2Day FM phone call to Britain was the life of Jacintha Saldanha!

We live in a global village and it is no longer acceptable for Australia’s media regulatory  standards to be set at such EXTREME levels before any measure of accountability kicks in that people die, both in Australia and now in Britain. The lesson to be learnt from Jacintha’s death is that shoddy ‘self-imposed’ media accountability standards do not work and, in the global village,  are an international safety hazard. The international community has an obligation to look beyond ‘diplomatic protocol‘ and learn from what happened to Jacintha, and take appropriate steps to prevent such incidents from ever happening again.

In Australia, the mass media has negotiated “cowboy country – anything goes” standards of accountability that now pose a danger to anyone, anywhere in the world. These standards were most definitely a contributing factor in Jacintha’s tragic death and anyone concerned about her death should be paying very close attention to what is happening in Australia.

 TRAGIC STATISTICS: It is extremely sad that Jacintha Saldanha’s death once more proves Joseph Stalin’s chilling, sociopathic statement that “One death is a tragedy but a million is merely a statistic.”

  1. I did not make that statement in order to be cruel or controversial, but rather to highlight the points previously stated in Part 2 of this posting, that Jacintha’s death may be one of a long series of such fatalities that have been triggered by the cruel malevolence and  insensitivity of Australia’s mass media.
  2. The Vice Regal letter above raises the question of exactly just WHO KNEW and decided to do nothing about these deaths and so let a train of events run on that eventually triggered the phone call that proved to be so fatally catalytic.

 HIGH TREASON?: Jacintha Saldanha’s suicide involved an Australian radio station deliberately impersonating the Queen in order to obtain confidential medical information about a member of the Queen’s family in order to then broadcast that information to a potential local audience of 4 million people and, through syndication, to a global audience of up to 7 billion people!

  1. I am sure that buried somewhere in Australia’s more ancient laws that deal with the issue of Treason, there are some statutes that are of direct relevance to what 2day FM successfully attempted to do. Ask yourself this, if what 2Day FM did was possible 100 years ago, would anyone in those days have dared to do it? If your answer is no, then the obvious question to ask is why did 2Day FM do it now?
  2. In seeking to fool someone at the hospital, no consideration appears to have been given to the potential impact upon the person who might be fooled, e.g. the emotional trauma or more practical consequences such as being fired, or even imprisoned, for disclosing confidential patient information about a member of the Queen’s family.

XENOPHOBIA: As a nation, Australians are incredibly xenophobic and therefore the potential cultural impact was not given adequate, if any, consideration.

  1. The possibility that having been fooled into revealing confidential information about a member of the Royal Family may be sufficient motivation for a person to commit suicide is unlikely to be seriously considered.
  2. For most Australians, what 2Day FM planned to do would have been seen as a great joke at the Queen’s expense. However, there are many traditional cultures around the world where “falling on your sword” would be considered the only truly honourable response to having been fooled into disclosing confidential information about one’s Royal Family,
  3. For most Anglo-Saxon heritage Australians this sort of response to a joke at the Queen’s expense was a cultural, below-the-radar, blind-spot.
  4. However, that does not excuse what was done for at the end of the day, radio stations that secretly record phone calls are breaking the law.

 SELF-REGULATION or NON-REGULATION?: Australia’s voluntary ‘self-regulation’ mass media compliance processes do not require the mass media to consider the impact upon a targeted victim.

  1. What the so-called ‘compliance’ standards focus upon is the impact upon the audience, not the victim, and the threshold for action, as is clearly evidenced in ACMA Report 2729, is a threshold level of “Extreme.”
  2. Shockingly, there is in Australia a decades long series of preventable fatalities that involve suicide or fatal heart attacks or strokes that when taken in isolation, do not represent unlawful killings.
  3. Dr DEATH: In the criminal case law precedent of Queensland’s Dr Death, Jayant Patel, none of the deaths for which he was convicted were initially considered to be part of a series of unlawful deaths. (See or for information about  Queensland’s infamous ‘Dr Death’)
  4. If reviewed impartially by forensic experts, it is highly probable that many of the unreported Post-Breaching fatalities may also have to be re-classified as unlawful killings.
  5. It is important to consider Dr Patel allegedly killed 87 of his patients and at the time of each death, not one of these fatalities was considered to be an unlawful death.
  6. However, once the scale of the death toll became common knowledge, public outrage forced forensic reviews that eventually identified 16 of these fatalities as clearly being unlawful deaths and Dr Patel was subsequently prosecuted and convicted on 3 counts of Manslaughter.
  7. As Dr Patel recently appealed this conviction and is awaiting re-trial, (See ), it is not appropriate to add further comment about these deaths at this time.

COLLATERAL DAMAGE: It is a horrific thought, but in the final analysis Jacintha ‘s death was ‘just’ one of many suicides that were co-triggered by Australia’s mass media industry, i.e. the mass media put a noose around the necks of vulnerable people by vilifying them with no thought for the emotional harm being done, and then Centrelink pulled the trapdoor ‘lever‘ by unconstitutionally breaching them.  

  1. What makes Jacintha’s death so unique is that it was perhaps the first international fatality triggered by the Australian mass media’s indifference to the consequences of their activities.
  2. As such, unlike the other deaths in this series, Jacintha’s death was unintended collateral damage rather than malicious intent as is the case with the other fatalities and consequently, for once, there is some genuine contrition on the part of those who triggered her fateful decision.

INTERNATIONAL INCIDENT: Jacintha’s death IS most definitely an international incident and neither the Australian Government nor the British Government will be keen to either accept their share of responsibility for the roles played in this tragic event or to say or do anything that may offend each other in a blame shifting game.

  1. In both Britain and Australia, anyone concerned about Jacintha’s death needs to be on the alert for the language of cover-up in the inquiry into Jacintha’s death.
  2. Watch out for phrases such as “contained”, “fast-tracked”, “speedy”, “timely”, “tightly focused investigation”, “no extraneous material” or “comprehensive”, etc.
  3. What is being speedily fast-tracked when that sort of language is used is that most extraneous and embarrassing of all things, TRUTH, which may be swept under the carpet as quickly and as comprehensively as can be done by the official truth-hiders who pose as truth-finders.


You are about to read a series of cop-out letters that share the common purpose of covering up a massive politically driven humanitarian disaster in which Jacintha’s death was unintended collateral damage.

  1. At the start of this blog is a JPEG clipping of a statement by a senior Australian Government official, Neil Skill, that explains how for decades bureaucrats have concealed the common link between thousands of deaths caused by trauma induced suicides, heart attacks, strokes and other less obvious but fatal causes.
  2. The common link in these deaths is an unconstitutional process known as “Breaching” and, as Neil Skill’s comment highlights, these fatalities were hidden by the simple process of not extracting the statistical data in the Australian Government’s welfare database.
  3. By deliberately not collecting this information, the DSS/Centrelink bureaucrats and politicians successfully avoided the politically explosive problem of reporting these fatalities to parliament.
  4. The problem was that by not reporting these fatalities, the death toll continued to rise!
  5. When it comes to the sensitive question of who else knew about these deaths and did nothing about them, the message from the sample of letters below is that too many people knew and did nothing, including the Queen’s own representative in Australia!(See the letter at the start of this posting.)
  6. This Vice Regal letter is the Buckingham Palace Connection for it raises the mega-sensitive question, did the Queen know what was happening and turn a blind eye?
  7. If she did, then she is as implicated in the death of Jacintha Saldanha just as much as the young 2Day FM ‘radio jock’ who impersonated her.
  8. Recently, Keith Vaz, the  chairman of the British House of Commons Home Affairs Committee stood in the street in front of television cameras and demanded to know the truth.
  9. If the truth is that the Queen knew of the series of suicides that eventually resulted in Jacintha’s death, will Keith Vaz still want to know?
  10. Given that Scotland Yard is responsible for looking into ALL aspects of the circumstances pertaining to Jacintha’s suicide, will the investigators also want to know?
  11. Can you imagine a Scotland Yard detective saying to the Queen, “Your Majesty, what did you know about a series of Breaching triggered suicides in Australia that preceded the recent death of Jacintha Saldanha?”

If the Vice regal representative of the Queen in Australia, Governor-General Quentin Bryce, knew about Breaching Quota fatalities and other breaching triggered fatalities, then surely, the Queen also knew?


Did the Queen know about these fatalities and for the sake of ‘political stability’, decide to ignore them? That is just one of the incredibly serious, “hard to get your head around”, issues that a thorough investigation of Jacintha’s death must give consideration too.

  1. The documents below will strongly support the idea of a high-level cover-up of breaching fatalities.
  2. Linking these documents to Jacintha’s death may seem like drawing a very long bow and therefore you should keep in mind that the media in Australia was fully aware of what was happening in the issues raised in these documents and yet the media, with one erroneous exception, has kept silent and for years and has been all too happy to sink the boot into the victims of what is probably the world’s largest and longest fraud.
  3. If some of those victims committed suicide, then, to use the logic of Ebenezer Scrooge, it was perceived by those who regarded these death as an “acceptable consequence” that they simply helped “to rid the world of the surplus population”  of unemployed people who were perceived as a drain on the national economy.
  4. The media in Australia DOES NOT have clean hands when it comes to perhaps as many as 12,000 fraud triggered suicides, heart attacks and strokes. The political leverage provided by the mass media’s silence may in fact explain why in Australia the mass media had a tabula rasa (blank sheet) when it came to media regulation and was able to make its own codes of conduct which did NOT focus upon the impact of targeted victims, but instead focused upon audience impact.
  5. The threshold levels for exploitative victimizing behaviour in these codes are NOT Zero Tolerance levels but, incredibly, accountability only kick in at threshold levels of EXTREME misconduct!
  6. Why did the Australian Parliament allow such manifestly partisan codes of conduct that were, and still are, inconsistent with both Rule of Law, e.g. Zero Tolerance of anti-vilification behaviour, and Federal Court case law decisions, e.g. the Eackot Decision mentioned in the previous blog, is a crucial question that needs to be carefully scrutinized?


The following documents in this blog are genuine and the URL hyper-links connect to web sites that contain independently verifiable material. The “Centrelink does not collect…” letter that is posted in the previous blog is hard evidence of an official lack of willingness to publish data that would make this pattern of officially condoned serial killings glaringly obvious to all but the most disinterested or partisan analysts.

  1. Neil Skill’s letter is the Nano-tip of a massive cover-up. By the time you have read the letters in this new posting you should be exceedingly competent in recognizing fob-offs and cover-ups. An excellent starting point on the journey into Hell is this secret confidential classification of submission 287 to the November 2005 Australian Senate Committee inquiry into the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 legislation.
  2. Check its classification on the committee’s list of submissions that are posted on the committee’s parliament house website and you will see that officially this submission is “Not yet available.”


Officially "Not yet available" this submission is secretly classified as confidential in order to hide breaching fraud and fatalities.

Officially “Not yet available” this submission is secretly classified as confidential in order to hide breaching quota frauds and the fatalities fatalities triggered by this activity.

CONFIDENTIAL: SUBMISSION 287: As the author of submission 287, it is my contention that the purpose of this secret confidential classification was to deliberately conceal the growing death toll caused by a very dangerous, unconstitutional activity colloquially known as Breaching.

  1. The original purpose of Parliamentary Privilege was to expose corruption in high places. Here it was deliberately misused to conceal gross abuse of power, massive fraud, and an unknown death toll.
  2. NOTE: Under Australia’s Constitution, issues such as resolving a Breach of Contract dispute are a Residual Power of the High Court and NOT a matter for government bureaucrats who are a vested-interest party to the alleged Breach-of-Contract dispute.
  3. The breaching legislation is a classic case of nemo iudex in causa sua, i.e. Don’t judge your own(vested interest) case!
  4. The Federal Government accused welfare recipients of breach-of-contract and then unilaterally determined that they had and then imposed a large financial penalty that was cumulatively  worth about a BILLION dollars a year!

The ‘Roofgate’ Suppression Order.

In February 2010, the Australian Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, discovered that the Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, had failed to report the death of a young man (Matthew Fuller) who had been employed as a ceiling insulation installer in an Australian Federal Government funded home improvement program. ( )

  1. The failure of Peter Garrett to report this 1st fatality had the flow-on consequence that in the following months, 3 more fatalities occurred as more unqualified and inadequately supervised people were employed to install ceiling insulation in homes.
  2. Tony Abbott went so far as to say that if Peter Garrett had been running a business in New South Wales, he would have been charged with “Industrial Manslaughter.”
  3. Although that statement was political hype, it struck a chord with concerned Australian home owners and Tony Abbott was able to convince independent and minor party senators to join with Coalition senators and set up a Senate Select Committee of Inquiry to look into the fatalities and fraud involved in what some sections of the media referred to as “Roofgate.” 
  4. Term of Reference (T.o.R.) #3 for that inquiry was a muck-raking catch-all, “Any other matters.”
  5. However, T.o.R. #3 backfired and was potentially a major embarrassment for Tony Abbott and the Coalition for it opened the door to submissions that addressed the problem of “Any other fatalities caused by any fraud in any other government funded program under the responsibility of any other government minister in any other government.” 
  6. The letter below shows how the Coalition controlled Select Committee of Inquiry coped with the problem of submissions that specifically addressed this embarrassing aspect of the T.o.R #3:
Another "don't copy, don't tell" suppression put in place to Hide Tony Abbott's personal 'scorecard' of fatalities.

Another “don’t copy, don’t tell” suppression order put in place to Hide Tony Abbott’s personal ‘scorecard’ of fatalities.

What you have just read is yet another official cover-up of fatalities caused by the QUOTAGATE fraud.

  1. NOTE: Just 11 weeks later on 18th May, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill made his candid comment that “Centrelink does not collect Post Breaching Statistics”, a comment that puts the spot-light on the misuse of Parliamentary Privilege to conceal a death toll that had been remorselessly increasing over a period of decades.

QUOTAGATE: The Howard Government’s Performance Indicator Targets & the Kernot Press Release.

Centrelink staff risked their jobs to expose this fraud, but the mass media AND the labour Party both moved quickly to bury this political scandal.

Centrelink staff risked their jobs to expose this fraud, but the mass media and the Labour Party caucus both moved quickly to bury this political scandal.


On June 27th 2000, the Australian Labour Party’s Shadow Minister for Employment, Cheryl Kernot issued a press release that exposed a cruel Howard Government fraud.

Ms Kernot issued the “quota on unemployed” press release which revealed that the Howard Government was misusing its lawful authority by enforcing illegal Performance Indicator Targets for the breaching of welfare recipients, i.e. the Howard Government was illegally imposing Breaching Quotas for the purpose of saving money.

  1. Breaching was an extremely dangerous activity that was in effect “the targeted and therefore deliberate removal of the only means of support, from extremely vulnerable, financially-impoverished people who had no other means of financial support, so that for a period of 3 months they are unable to meet even the most basic costs of living.” (Derived from paragraph 47 of the 2002 Welfare Reform Discussion Paper.)

FELONY MURDER: Between the 1st July 2000 and 30th June 2001, the Howard Government issued a truly mind-boggling 346,078 Breach-of-Contract (breaching) penalties which represented a rate of approximately 3 Breach-of-Contract penalties per MINUTE during Public Service ‘9 – 5’ working hours.

  1. That rate of Breach-of-Contract ‘determinations’ is an unofficial world record, perhaps because the courts were deliberately kept out of this revenue raising activity!
  2. As Neil Skill’s letter made quite clear, Centrelink successfully hid the lethal consequences of this activity simply by not collecting this information from their state-of-the-art customer database!
  3. This phenomenal rate of breaching activity was not merely the heavy-handed misuse of authority by a conservative, right-wing government; it was out and out fraud!
  4. What was not appreciated by anyone at the time that these quotas were applied was the fact that buried deep in South Australia’s criminal laws statutes, i.e. the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1936, was a dormant Felony Murder statute, i.e. any felony, e.g. Fraud, that results in a fatality means that the death was a Felony Murder, a crime with no statute of limitations under South Australia’s criminal laws.


The tsunami of breaching activity literally overwhelmed community welfare groups across Australia and they responded by establishing a non-government independent inquiry that was chaired by Professor Denis Pearce.

  1. Some Centrelink staff again put their jobs on the line and secretly testified at the Independent Pearce Inquiry reported. They were being coerced into meeting breaching quotas and that, due to the extremely high rate of successful administrative appeals, (up to 86% in some areas) applications for such appeals were to be deliberately held up for 6 weeks.
  2. What the subsequent report of the Pearce Inquiry identified was the ruthless abuse of power and systemic fraud on a massive scale that was unparalleled in Australia’s history.
  3. In practical terms, the Howard Government abused breaching legislation and ruthlessly robbed the poor in order to give huge tax cuts to the rich.
  4. Faced with this report, the Federal Minister for Human Services, former Attorney-General Senator Amanda Vanstone, strongly denied any knowledge of the quotas as the following transcript of a debate between Professor Pearce and Senator Vanstone makes quite clear.


ABC Radio news – AM Program, Monday 11th March 2002, 8.25 AM. Reporter: Rebecca Carmody. (A downloaded transcript of the broadcast.)

Linda Motteram: An independent review into breaches and penalties in Australia’s social security system has recommended a major overhaul after finding it to be unfair and counter-productive. Chaired by Emeritus Professor of Law at the Australian National University, Professor Dennis Pearce, the review also involved the Australian Industry Group.

 Rebecca Carmody: Professor Pearce says some of the failings he identifies are the direct result of Centrelink staff being exposed to excessive pressure or incentives to impose penalties. He says staff have told him of being called before management to explain why they had been soft on breaching.

Dennis Pearce: If they’re not carrying through a fairly tough line on penalties, then they are called to account.

Amanda Vanstone: The people who wrote the review were advised by Centrelink officers that the assertion was simply incorrect and nonetheless had gone ahead and continued to print that. I think you need to ask them why they’ve done that.

Dennis Pearce: They say they’ve written that because they’ve spoken to Centrelink staff and this is what they’re being told.

Amanda Vanstone: Well I’m afraid that’s simply not a good enough response! I mean I’ve been advised by Centrelink management that there are no explicit or implicit targets on the number of breach decisions.

  1. It is important to note that if Senator Vanstone had admitted that the Howard Government was illegally using breaching quotas, the AFP would have had no option but to launch a criminal investigation into any fatalities caused by this activity as they would have constituted deaths due to unlawful activity.
  2. In South Australia they would have been Felony Murders and the mandatory penalty is 25 years per fatality. There was no way that Senator Vanstone would admit to breaching quotas.
  3. And then there is the I’ve been advised by Centrelink management that there are no explicit or implicit targets on the number of breach decisions.”
  4. It is important to keep in mind that this is the Centrelink management team that was NOT bothering to “collect” and report the “Post Breaching Terminal Outcomes Statistics” in their reports to either the Minister or to Parliament.
  5. Over a period of decades, these bureaucrats had never reported a single one of the (estimated) 6,000 – 12,000 deaths triggered by breaching activity, I therefore strongly doubt that they would qualify as being what the courts could reasonably consider to be impartial, reliable witnesses!
  6. Just how truthful was the letter below since the ‘negative humanitarian impact’ of breaching activity was totally excluded from the report to the Minister of Human Services?
Is this an example of "plausible Deniability"? Don't officially tell the Minister and then he can officially deny any knowledge if the truth comes out.

Is this an example of “Plausible Denial”? Don’t ‘officially’ tell the Minister and then he can ‘officially’ deny any knowledge if the truth comes out.


In May 2005, a whistle-blower revealed to the media that a member of the Howard Government, Trish Draper MP, has misused her parliamentary travel allowance. In 2000, she left her 4 children in the care of her defacto spouse and traveled to Europe on a ‘fact-finding-tour’ in the company of a young man that she had recently met. Upon returning to Australia she claimed the travel costs for the young gentleman by falsely claiming that he was her ‘defacto spouse.’  Apparently, Prime Minister Howard was furious when he discovered what she had done but he did not uphold his oath of office and refer this fraud to the Australian Federal Police. (Hereafter AFP)

Falsely claiming a travel allowance for someone who was not her spouse was one mistake. Sacking a whistle blower who knew about this fraud was another. Implicating the Prime Minister in this fraud was real whopper of a mistake, so yes, she certainly made some errors!

Falsely claiming a travel allowance for someone who was not her spouse was one mistake. Sacking a whistle blower who knew about this fraud was another. Implicating the Prime Minister in this fraud was real whopper of a mistake, so yes, she certainly made some errors!


In response to the Travelgate Scandal, I requested that the AFP investigate both Travelgate and the Quotagate fraud. In my letter to the AFP Commissioner, Mick Keelty, I specifically asked if the fatalities caused by the Quotagate fraud constituted “Felony Murder”? The AFP response is set out below:

The AFP was working in partnership WITH Centrelink to catch welfare fraudsters but refused to investigate fraud BY Centrelink . I believe that's what is known as nemo iudex in causa sua, i.e. protecting your own patch.

The AFP was working in partnership WITH Centrelink to catch welfare fraudsters but refused to investigate fraud BY Centrelink . I believe that’s what is known as nemo iudex in causa sua, i.e. forget Rule of Law, just stand by your Centrelink workmates and protect your own patch.

“Yet another abuse of process” which will eventually bring the justice system into disrepute.”

Page 2 of this letter was signed by Federal Agent Louise Denley on 7th July 2004.

  1. It should be noted that whilst the AFP was apparently too busy with its current caseload to investigate whether or not Trish Draper had “Defrauded the Commonwealth by obtaining a (travel allowance) benefit by deception.” If she had, then Prime Minister Howard was “An Accessory after the Fact” for having failed to report this fraudulent claim to the AFP.
  2. As for Quotagate, who cares if 600,000 welfare recipients have been defrauded of almost $2 Billion in legitimate welfare entitlements and who cares if some of them subsequently died as a result of this rip-off?
  3. Apparently, from their official response response to my complaint, the AFP did not.
  4. Interestingly, shortly after this letter was written by Federal Agent Denley, the AFP ‘out-posted’ 10 AFP officers to work with Centrelink to investigate alleged fraud by welfare recipients.
  5. Experts in criminal case law will appreciate that in refusing to investigate the Travelgate and Quotagate allegations and then out-posting 10 officers to investigate anonymous phones alleging fraud by welfare recipients that the AFP was demonstrating Manifest Ostensible Bias, an activity that is “Broad Ultra Vires” because it undermines the Rule of Law.
  6. The July 7, 2004 decision was a flagrant ‘Abuse of Process’ which does nothing but bring Australia’s criminal justice system into disrepute.

SENATOR ELLISON’S PARTISAN COVER-UP (“nemo iudex in causa sua”).

“nemo iudex in causa sua” is not about a young Clown Fish trying to escape from a dentist’s aquarium! Translated, it means “Do not judge your own case”, i.e. be totally unbiased. It meant that the Justice Minister was supposed to be “without any (personal) bias or any vested interest” when responding to my complaint and when deciding upon the appropriate action to take as required by Due Process of Law. The problem was that he had MASSIVE vested interest!

  1. The letter below is from Prime Minister Howard’s former Justice Minister, Senator Ellison. This letter was ‘delayed’ in posting and wasn’t received until late on the afternoon before the 2004 federal election.
  2. The bias in this letter is absolutely massive, for if Senator Ellison were to have admitted that Trish Draper had rorted her travel allowance and that the Prime Minister had violated his Oath of Office by covering for her, the Howard Government would have lost the 2004 election and Senator Ellison would no longer be a government minister with all the perks that go with such high office.
  3. The “not provided any evidence” statement was pure farce and totally ridiculous for there was no need for me to do so.
  4. Senator Ellison’s statement blatantly ignored the fact that evidence of the Travelgate rort had been tabled in a South Australian court by an Adelaide television station (SAS 7) which was seeking to have a blanket media ban on Ms. Draper’s alleged rorting activity lifted;
  5. there had been several days of fierce debate recorded in Hansard;
  6. there was Ms. Draper’s own “I made a mistake” confession;
  7. the official audit record of Ms. Draper false claim that is contained in the Department of the House of Representatives administrative files;
  8. taxation records,; airline and hotel records, etc.
  9. I am NOT a licensed investigator and therefore it is against the law for me to conduct a criminal investigation. I was simply exercising my citizen’s “See something, hear some thing, say something” obligation to report a crime to the police.
  10. The reality is that the Federal Police already had at their fingertips, overwhelming evidence that Ms. Draper’s travel claim was false, but they chose not to investigate for reasons of (political) “gravity/sensitivity”, i.e. they did not want to charge Trish Draper because they would had to charge the Prime Minister as “an accessory after the fact.” 
  11. Because of the manifestly obvious massive vested interest bias that Senator Ellison had, instead of Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers required by the Australian Constitution, Senator Ellison acted to protect both the Howard Government’s re-election chances and his own ministerial position.
  12. To say that he had a vested-interest in NOT having a Federal Police investigation of either Travelgate or Perksgate was a gross understatement!
  13. NOTE: The “Connecting the dots” comments were added to a copy of this letter by myself when I reviewed it. At the time, the AFP and Centrelink were following up about a 1,000 anonymous hot-line tip-offs of welfare fraud per week but not one officer was available to investigate allegations of fraud BY Centrelink. Since the Crown system of Justice is based upon a total absence of bias, and the Justice Minister’s decision was incredibly biased, his decision was “Broad Ultra Vires.”
Decisions, decisions! Uphold the law and lose the federal election and my job, or fob off this pesky twerp!  With his job on the line, Senator Ellison really on had one sensible option; uphold the law, but he did not pick that option.

Decisions, decisions! Uphold the law and lose the federal election and my job, or fob off this pesky twerp! With his job on the line, Senator Ellison really only had one sensible option; uphold the law, but he did not pick that option did he?

Regrettably, as the Perksgate issue below makes quite clear, “Broad Ultra Vires” is Standard Operating Procedure in Australia’s criminal justice system when politics is involved. As with the July 7, 2004 decision by the AFP, the Justice Minister’s decision was yet another flagrant ‘Abuse of Process’ which ultimately brings Australia’s criminal justice system into still further disrepute.

The problem for the AFP in letting Trish Draper off the hook was that lots of other MPs decided that if they were immune from investigation, then they would hope in for their chop so to speak. "A high proportion" of 144 MP's ripped off $4.64 MILLION, not exactly small change, so how did the AFP handle this rip-off?

The problem for the AFP in letting Trish Draper off the hook was that lots of other MP’s decided that if they were immune from investigation and prosecution, then they would hop in for their chop so to speak. “A high proportion” of 144 MP’s ripped off $4.64 MILLION, not exactly small change, so how did the AFP handle this rip-off?  Was a “high proportion of 144”, actually 144?

PERKSGATE: The day when ‘Abuse of Process’ went into Overdrive.

 In August 2009, the Federal Auditor-General delivered a report to Federal Cabinet that contained the following confronting statement: “As elected officials holding public office, Parliamentarians are expected to act with integrity in accordance with the public trust placed in them.”  (Page 12, Auditor-General’s Report No.3 2009-10. Audit Report – Administration of Parliamentarians’ Entitlements by the Department of Finance and Regulation.)  The inclusion of the phrase “expected to act” is a clear statement by the Auditor-General that some politicians HAD NOT ACTED WITH INTEGRITY. If they had been acting with integrity, then obviously there would have been no need to make this statement as it would have been an official insult by a very senior Public Servant!

‘PERKSGATE’: It appears that in the run up to the 2007 federal election, an audit of 144 MP’s and senators revealed that a “high proportion” had allegedly ‘supplemented’ (my word) their election campaign funds by fraudulently ‘double-dipping’ in the $390 million taxpayer funded “Entitlements Fund” to the tune of $4.64 MILLION. That is hefty fraud of taxpayer’s money in anyone’s language and so once again, as a taxpayer who had been ripped off,

I asked the AFP to investigate this “Perksgate” fraud. The AFP’s response is remarkably similar to Federal Agent Denley’s letter but the reference to “2004” and the fact that this email was not classified as either confidential or secret by Federal Agent Pearce (SEC=UNCLASSIFIED) makes it quite clear that he was totally unaware that the Agent Denley’s 2004 letter was one of the documents covered by the secret (undated) confidential classification of submission 287 in November 2005!

 OOPS! Federal agent Pearce did not know that the 2004 decision not to investigate Travelgate and the Quotagate rip-offs had been secretly classified as confidential. That's the trouble with such secrets; no-one knows when to keep quiet!

OOPS! Federal agent Pearce did not know that the 2004 decision not to investigate Travelgate and the Quotagate rip-offs had been secretly classified as confidential. That’s the trouble with such secrets; no-one knows that they are supposed to keep quiet!


Let’s see; there is an official report from the Auditor-General that identified the theft of $4.64 million, debate in Federal Parliament, enough documentary evidence for federal auditors to identify WHO and HOW MUCH, and (brief) reports in the news media that indicate senior members of both the former Howard Government and members of the (then) current Rudd Government were involved.

  1. However, the AFP again flatly refused to investigate this “in-your-face” parliamentary fraud!
  2. Once again, the AFP could find the resources to keep AFP officers out-posted to Centrelink and even had the resources to set up a joint task force with Centrelink, the Bureau of Statistics and the Auditor-General’s office that was focused upon working out how to sort out the anonymous, spurious. often malicious, reports constantly being received on Centrelink’s hotline.
  3. Clearly the AFP was taking Manifest Ostensible Bias to new heights, or perhaps more correctly, plunging the fundamental principle of “nemo iudex in causa sua” to a new low because the AFP, having refused to investigate in 2004, was now defending that unconstitutional decision by repeating it!
  4. For the nation’s criminal justice system to be without bias, ANY person accused of a crime was/is entitled to be treated in precisely the same manner as the AFP had chosen to treat federal politicians. This basically means NO INVESTIGATION of an alleged crime which means that no charges can be laid!
  5. Once more the AFP had misused its lawful authority in a gross abuse of power to protect federal politicians in order to stave off a major political crisis that could seriously destabilize the nation.


In May 2012, the Gillard Government was precariously clinging to power with majority of just 2 seats, both of which were very shaky because one seat was held by the Speaker in the House of Representatives, Peter Slipper, who had been accused of alleged sexual harassment by one of his support staff.

  1. On 12th December 2012, Justice Steven Rares of the Federal Court ruled that the charges against Mr Slipper were false; a deliberate political ploy to discredit Mr Slipper by a former Howard Government Minister, Mal Brough, who was planning to re-enter parliament at the next federal election.
  2. Readers should note that Mr Brough is another one of the Howard Government Employment Ministers deeply implicated in the deliberate cover-up of the Quotagate breaching fatalities.

 THE THOMSON AFFAIR: The other federal MP accused of wrong-doing was Craig Thomson who, most ironically, had been investigated by Fair Work Australia and subsequently accused of allegedly misusing $70,000 of Health Service Union funds to help finance his (successful) 2007 election campaign to enter Federal Parliament. In May 2012, in an effort to bring down the Gillard Government, the Opposition attacked Craig Thomson demanding that he be dismissed from Federal Parliament, a move that would have conveniently handed control of the Federal Parliament over to the Opposition. On the 11th May 2012, the Finance Minister, Senator Penny Wong, responded on ABC Radio in an interview in which the following comments were made:

 “… 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.

Now, I’ve spoken about this for some time, including on the ABC. When I’m asked about a number of things which are in the public arena, for example in the Fair Work Australia Report,

I’ve said, if those allegations are correct, they are manifestly inappropriate. Manifestly! But 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… Well, we have said, very clearly, 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. …the appropriate way to deal with those is to allow the courts to deal with them.”  

NOTE: This interview is about 8 minutes into the file: MP3 file:  bst_20120511-0710.mp3

  1.  In her speech, Senator  Wong’s remarks unwittingly completely and utterly repudiated Federal Agent Pearce’s logic for not investigating ‘Perksgate’, i.e. his comment  “…the subject of political debate and inquiry” was totally repudiated by several of Senator Wong’s constitutionally correct comments, e.g. “Politicians are not judge and jury on these matters.” “we have a system that is about the separation of powers…” “proper process”.
  2. Senator Wong’s comment “Regrettably, that’s not the way the Opposition, on this issue, are approaching it” is easily transferred to both Federal Agent Denley’s letter and Federal Agent Pearce’s letter, i.e. “Regrettably, that’s not the way the FEDERAL POLICE, on this (Perksgate/Quotagate/Travelgate) issue, are approaching it.” 
  3. In a gross abuse of power that seriously undermines Australia’s criminal justice system and the democratic concept of Rule of Law, the AFP have on a number of occasions flatly refused to investigate several alleged frauds linked to federal politicians, i.e. Quotagate, Travelgate and Perksgate.
  4. This is despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that unlawful, fraudulent activity has been undertaken by members of Federal Parliament that may in the Quotagate issue involve an as yet unknown number of fatalities, some of which may be re-classifiable as Felony Murders under the provisions found in the previously mentioned SA Consolidated Criminal Laws Act, 1936.
  5. To say that the AFP is acting in an EXTREMELY PARTISAN and BIASED manner is an understatement!
  6. With the possibility that the Howard Government and the AFP did “a dirty deal” in which there was no investigation of Travelgate and Quotagate in exchange for the draconian laws contained in the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 legislation, the issue of “nemo iudex in causa sua”, is front and centre with people having been investigated, prosecuted and convicted under those laws which are quite possibly the “proceeds of a crime.”
  7. At best, even if there was no dirty deal, the available evidence indicates that the AFP appears to have unconstitutionally rationalized that ‘National Interestmust trump Rule of Law, a viewpoint that is dangerous close to the viewpoint expressed by News Ltd CEO, Kym Williams, that “…market forces must trump the regulators.”

Keep in mind the fact that for years, AFP officers had been out-posted to Centrelink to assist in the investigation of anonymous allegations of fraud by welfare recipients. However, it is possible to identify numerous occasions when the AFP failed to take action when decisive action was required:

  1. Cheryl Kernot’s press release of June 27th 2000 which revealed that the Howard Government was allegedly misusing its lawful authority to defraud welfare recipients of legitimate welfare entitlements.
  2. Centrelink’s FY 2000-01 annual report that revealed that a staggering 346,078 Breach of Contract penalties had been issued at a rate of approximately 3 per minute.
  3. The glaring omission of any Human Impact data in the FY 2000-01 Centrelink Annual Report and ALL previous annual reports issued by Centrelink since its inception in 1997.
  4. The absence of similar data in every department of Social Security annual report dating back to the introduction of Breaching legislation.
  5. Ditto for all annual reports issued by the Department of Employment.
  6. The successful Administrative Appeal Tribunal rates of up to 86% which clearly signaled that something was grossly amiss with the Breaching process.
  7. The public submissions made to the Independent Pearce Inquiry and the Findings of Fact contained in the Pearce Inquiry Report.
  8. The AFP’s responses to my June 2004 request to investigate either Quotagate, Travelgate and the subsequent September 2009 refusal to investigate ‘Perksgate.


Time and time again, the AFP failed to take action when action was required. And yet the nation’s mass media did not raise any voice of protest at this reprehensible conduct. This silence over the brazen rorting by federal politicians makes a stark contrast to the media’s viewpoint on how welfare recipients should be treated!


In some cultures, if a woman is forcibly gang-raped, she is deemed by family and friends to be at fault for having ‘encouraged’ this rape, i.e. she is a woman, she ‘had’ sexual intercourse with men, she is therefore at fault; end of story. The ‘Bludgers lose dole‘ article by News Ltd.’s national political editor, Samantha Maiden, is the Australian mass media’s equivalent of such a  prejudicial mind-set!

 100,000 unconstitutionally have dole cut off.

100,000 unconstitutionally have dole cut off.


  1. There are striking similarities between this covert propaganda ‘not-the-news’ article and the Findings of Fact handed down by a Federal Court judge, Justice Bromberg, in the 2011 Eackot class action.  Another News Ltd journalist, Andrew Bolt, had misused the power of the press to, as Justice Bromberg so aptly pointed out, write two articles that deliberately contained “ errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language” that offend,, humiliate, insult, or intimidate.” When handing down his findings, Justice Bromberg also pointed out that “…Mr Bolt both understood and intended the imputations of that kind were conveyed by the newspaper articles that he wrote.” Andrew Bolt’s error of judgement was that he vilified people who had the financial resources and legal know-how to hold him accountable in court for his reprehensible comments .
  2. The problem for welfare recipients is that they lack the massive financial resources, about $30,000 per day, required to hold Samantha Maiden accountable in a court for the above article which also contains “ errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language” that offends, humiliates, insults, and is intimidating.”
  3. Key errors of fact in the above news article include the subtle sorts of errors that are a core omission in propaganda, i.e.  the deliberate omission  of relevant facts that would enable readers to make an objective and unbiased assessment of the article.

The Australian Constitution – Sub-paragraph 51, (xxiiiA) states:

51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (xxiiia) The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and benefits, medical  and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances:

 Because of numerous (mostly unsuccessful) referendums to change the Australian Constitution, most ordinary people in Australia know that we have a constitution but because Constitutional Rights are not taught in schools, very few people actually know their constitutional rights which is why, in the financial year that Ms. Maiden was referring to, 100,000 people had been unconstitutionally breached.

 The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment…”

Error of Fact Omission #1: Paragraph 51 (xxiiia) of the Australian Constitution actually places a constitutional obligation upon the Federal Parliament to make laws for “the provision” of a broad range of welfare benefits to eligible people, e.g. unemployment benefits, which are colloquially known as “the dole.” Ms. Maiden does not mention that Parliament is authorized by the constitution to make laws that provide welfare benefits but parliament is NOT authorized to make laws that deprive people of their constitutional rights to a welfare benefit. Error of fact Omission #2:  The clause in brackets that states (“but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription”). This clause specifically prohibits the Federal Parliament from linking welfare payments to civil conscription activities, e.g. Work for the Dole! There is a good reason why Aussie Diggers returning from World War Two wanted this specific clause in the Australian Constitution. Some Diggers  had made a promise to their K.I.A. mates that their children would never again be exploited as cheap labour during hard times as had happened to many Diggers during the Pre-war Depression era! This clause honours this sacred trust, and the unconstitutional linking of Work for the Dole to eligibility for welfare payments trampled all over that sacred promise. It also meant that the Work for the Dole penalties mentioned in the article were also unconstitutional. This is something else that Ms. Maiden does NOT mention in her vilifying propaganda article.

Error of Fact Omission #3: Deliberately rude during interviews. The presumption behind this statement is the myth that all employers are paragons of virtue and would never do anything to provoke an angry response from  job seekers. This most definitely is NOT the case! As a CES Job Club manager I encountered grossly exploitative employers, e.g. one employer who offered two women a job at $2 per hour, less than a quarter of the minimum wage at that time, and threatened to have them breached if they did not accept the job.

Recent comments such as Gena Rinehart’s statement that African workers would be happy to work for $2 a day clearly reveal that greedy, exploitative employers are still around today. (See: )

  1. When working as a Job Network recruitment consultant, I came across an ‘employer’ who was advertising for a presentable waitress to lay tables.
  2. After a string of highly presentable, outgoing young ladies who had been sent to this employer all turned into sotto voiced people who spoke to me in one-word sentences, the penny finally dropped and I realized that I was sending these young women to an ‘employer’ who was not interested in table service skills but was more interested, like a bull or stallion, in being serviced!
  3. I withdrew the job listing and it was promptly lodged with another Job Network agency.
  4. For sexual predators, the lack of protection for Job Seekers was a dream come true!
  5. Just file a job vacancy and then a steady stream of victims, who would be breached if they did not show up, would be sent to you.
  6. Nothing has changed since those days but the constant problem of exploitative employers and opportunistic predators was something else that Ms. Maiden failed to mention to readers in her article.

Error of Fact Omission #4: Payments restored… in some cases with full back-pay. I previously mentioned that some Centrelink staff testified to the Independent Pearce Inquiry that they were told to delay Administrative Appeals applications for 6 weeks. This was brazen fraud because the back-payment of benefits after a successful appeal is a recent innovation that was not in place in 2001. The Howard Government deliberately delayed appeals for the sole purpose of defrauding welfare recipients, but somehow, once again Ms. Maiden failed to mention this in her propaganda article.

Error of Fact Omission #5: “Even valid reasons can attract penalties…if Centrelink is not told in advance.”  During the dark days of John Howard’s  ‘Breaching Quotas’ I asked a Centrelink staff member at the Elizabeth office how late a person could be before they were breached? The answer was succinct to say the least; “10 minutes.”

A late bus can mean a lost job, but with the Howard Government's Breaching Quotas, a late bus was an opportunity to separate a job seeker from their welfare payment.

A late bus can mean a lost job, but with the Howard Government’s Breaching Quotas, a late bus was an opportunity to separate a job seeker from their welfare payment.

  1. In Adelaide, every 3 months the South Australian Minister of Transport issues a press release detailed the size of fines issued to Adelaide’s privatized bus services for being late; fines totaling $218,000 in just one quarter were imposed in 2012.
  2. In 2001, the Serco bus fleet that serviced the Centrelink’s Elizabeth Office catchment area was the oldest and most unreliable fleet of buses in Adelaide with constant breakdowns causing chaos with schedules.
  3. If the bus broke down, this was a valid reason for missing an appointment; however,  because Centrelink had not been notified beforehand, welfare recipients were breached!
  4. It is easy to understand why the appeals rate ran as high as 86% in some areas!
  5. Again Ms. Maiden failed to mention this in her carefully crafted act of deliberate vilification of Australia’s impoverished unemployed.

Error of Fact Omission #6: is the point mentioned in my previous comments about the Independent Pearce inquiry, i.e. breaching is a residual power of the High Court and not an issue to be unilaterally “resolved’ by a clerk working for a federal Government agency. Original jurisdiction of High Court: Paragraph 75.  In all matters– (sub-paragraph iii) In which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party:

  1. In a normal situation in which any Federal Government agency believes that a Breach-of-Contract may have occurred, if the dispute can’t be resolved by negotiation, then it must be resolved in the High Court.
  2. Breaching legislation blatantly ignored the ‘nemo iudex in causa sua‘ principle of don’t judge your own cause as it was deliberately intended to allow the Federal Government to reduce its annual welfare funding costs by falsely accusing welfare recipients of Breach-of-Contract and then unilaterally determining that a breach had occurred so that the Federal Government could financially benefit from this activity!
  3. To say that this was a vested interest decision that was devoid of any Natural Justice is a gross understatement. The legal reality of this legislation is that, for financial gain by governments, nemo iudex in causa sua is clearly more honoured in the breach than the observance. 
  4. Breaching meant that the Federal Government, through the Department of Employment, was accusing welfare recipients of breach-of-contract, and another Federal Government agency, Centrelink, was then automatically applying a penalty, with the results that successive Federal Governments have pocketed the billions of dollars in so called Savings that are really the proceeds of a crime!
  5. The Administrative Appeals system was, and is, a quasi-legal, non- judicial appeals system with the members of the appeals tribunals not required to have any formal legal qualifications, just proven administrative experience and a professional qualification of some sort! 
  6. That may explain why some Centrelink staff sometimes ignore Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions if they don’t agree with them.
  7. As the following extract from Centrelink’s FY 2001-02 Annual Report clearly reveals, this unscrupulous and unconstitutional legislation achieved massive “savings.” Once more, Ms. Maiden’s article was erroneous because it had omitted the crucial fact that breaching legislation was a blatant denial of the constitutional rights of welfare recipients.
DSS and Centrelink annual reports are big on "Scorecard" savings but are also TOTALLY DEVOID of any reports about the humanitarian consequences caused by those savings. The absence of this data from these reports to parliament makes it quite clear that the bureaucrats responsible for these reports, KNEW what they were hiding from the parliament and the public.

DSS and Centrelink annual reports are big on “Scorecard” savings but are also TOTALLY DEVOID of any reports about the humanitarian consequences caused by those savings. The absence of this data from these reports to parliament makes it quite clear that the bureaucrats responsible for these reports, KNEW exactly what they were hiding from the parliament and the public, i.e. evidence of the death toll caused by this activity.

$867.2 million + $756.4 million =    $1.623 BILLION. That’s not chicken feed, and it should be noted that it was taken from “…extremely vulnerable, financially-impoverished people who had no other means of financial support in meeting their most basic costs of living”, with the consequent result that for a period of 3 months the victims of this unconstitutional activity were effectively being left to starve on the streets.

  1. As the News Ltd. national political editor, Ms. Maiden would have been fully aware of the constitutional and legal violations taking place and yet the content of her article makes it quite clear that she was prepared to use her professional position to vilify 100,000 victims of systemic fraud.
  2. Her lack of concern for the devastating impact of breaching penalties clearly demonstrates an almost sociopathic disassociation with the harm caused by this unconstitutional activity.

Error of Fact Omission #7:  Since any reasonably perceptive person would have been aware of the potentially lethal consequences of depriving financially impoverished, highly vulnerable people of their only means of meeting their basic costs of living, as a media professional,

  1. Ms. Maiden should have been able to appreciate the potentially lethal consequences of breaching activity and yet she made absolutely no mention of the human impact data that Centrelink management was excluding from the annual reports which focused upon a “Scorecard” that emphasized “Savings”, not the humanitarian disasters and lives lost due to this unconstitutional activity.


The following article written by News Ltd. journalist, David Penberthy, is another example of a propaganda “not-quite- the-news” item that deliberately contained “ errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language” that offend,, humiliate, insult, or intimidate.”

  1. When writing this article I have no doubt that David Penberthy “…both understood and intended the imputations of that kind were conveyed by the newspaper article that he wrote.” 
  2. I do not intend to dissect the errors of fact in this article other than to comment that the statement “It was the first bludgers uprising the world has ever seen” most conveniently overlooks such well recorded events as the reason why the Coliseum was built, the famine driven French Revolution, and the Irish Potato Famine Riots and the fact that even millionaires and well-heeled members of the middle class also played a well-documented role in this “dial-a-riot.”.

The language used in David Penberthy’s article mirrors  Ms. Maiden’s use of the language of vilification by referring to people as “bludgers”, a term of description in Australia that is extremely demeaning and offensive. In his article David Penberthy continued in this vein with terms such as the large demonizing text header comment about “welfare-funded ratbags.”

David Penberthy either never studied European history or else he was determined to ensure that the truth should not spoil his propaganda article.

David Penberthy either never studied European history or else he was very determined to ensure that the truth should not spoil his demonizing  propaganda article.

  1. One interesting point in this article is that rorting by well heeled politicians is not the exclusive preserve of Australia’s feral federal politicians, i.e. “…the House of Lords perks scandal which happened 4 years ago”, coincides with the 2007 ‘Perksgate’ scandal in Australia.


How is it that the Australian mass media, both broadcast and print, can openly and brazenly refer to welfare recipients as “Dole bludgers” and “Dole cheats” who are sponging of off taxpayers by riding the “Welfare Gravy Train?” Isn’t this is the same sort of pejorative vilifying language that Federal Court judge, Justice Bromberg, slammed when handing down his Findings of Fact in the Eackot Decision? Yes it is and the message from the ACMA was quite clear, both in the comments in ACMA Report 2729 which are in contained in Part 2 of this posting, i.e. Eackot was about Racial Vilification but Report 2729 was dealing with “Socio-Economic Vilification” and there is no law against that and so that makes it all right!

When Australia's mass media were allowed to set up there own codes of of conduct, as this ACMA letter makes quite clear, the media was very careful to ensure that they would have a free reign in vilifying the poor.

When Australia’s mass media were allowed to set up their own codes of conduct, as this ACMA letter makes quite clear, the media was very careful to ensure that they would have a free reign in vilifying the poor.


Caveat Emptor! (Buyer beware.) What sort of ‘investigation’ do you get when so called “federal investigators” have a long list of people and organizations who they arbitrarily exempt from any investigations? The family, friends and co-workers of Jacintha Saldanha, along with Scotland Yard detectives and the city of London Coroner, all need to be aware that the ACMA is the Australian Government appointed investigative agency that has been given the responsibility for investigating 2Day FM’s role her death! What you may get is not justice; you could get an Australian Government COVER-UP!

Note the last line of this letter, written by the head of the ACMA’s investigation unit, Rochelle Zurnamer, which specifically states something that the AFP did not dare state, “The ACMA does not investigate politicians or participants in broadcasts.” Quite clearly, as far as the ACMA’s chief investigator is concerned, politicians and other people who appear on television are above and beyond being investigated, a viewpoint that is totally inconsistent with the Constitution which states:

“Operation of the constitution and laws. Paragraph 5. This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under   the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State;”

  1. According to the Australian Constitution, the Law applies to the courts, judges and the people! However, as the above comment clearly reveals, the ACMA puts politicians and television presenters above the constitution and flatly refuses to investigate them.
  2. I also have a similar letter from the ACMA refusing to investigate Centrelink because the ACMA did not have the authority to so. That statement was untrue because Clause 7 (1) (h) of schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Services Act is federal legislation that gives the ACMA the power to investigate alleged breaches of the law and logically, if other entities are involved in that alleged criminal activity, then the ACMA investigation ‘goes where the evidence goes.
  3. A relevant parallel that decisively underscores this point is the 3-year-long Fair Work Australia (FWA) investigation of the Health Services Union (HSU). In that investigation, the evidence indicated that a federal politician, Craig Thomson, may have used his union credit card to pay for prostitutes and that he may have also have misused $70,000 of HSU funds to pay for his 2007 campaign to become a federal MP. Recently FWA submitted a 1,200 report of their investigation to the Federal Director of Public Prosecutions and last week Mr. Thomson was in court answering some of those allegations.
  4. For Jacintha’s family (and lawyer?), the really crucial part of Ms Zurnamer’s  letter is the statement, “The ACMA does not investigate…” If Ms. Zurnamer had been totally candid and accurate, she should have put a full-stop after the word “investigate.”
  5. The ACMA does NOT conduct investigations in accordance with internationally accepted standards of ‘Due Process of Law’, e.g. plaintiffs and witnesses are not even interviewed and complaints will only be accepted in writing only after the alleged offender(s), or their lawyers, refute the allegation!
  6. That is no way to conduct criminal investigations! It is therefore no surprise that the ACMA has a remarkably impressive 95% strike rate for sweeping the unconscionable conduct of Australian broadcasters under the carpet.

 SEE NO EVIL -REPORT 2780 IS ALL ABOUT MASS FRAUD AND MASS MURDER? The letter below summarizes the key issues that underpinned ACMA Report 2780 and it should be noted that the ACMA flatly refused to investigate the allegations that Centrelink and SAS 7 are jointly involved in concealing the unreported breaching fatalities and thus possibly violating South Australia’s felony murder laws. They are also accused of concealing Paragraph 1,237a of the Social Security Act, an activity that allows welfare recipients to be wrongfully duped by Centrelink into repaying some $3 Billion in Centrelink over-payments, much of which was due to Centrelink errors and which therefore does not have to be repaid if not detected by Centrelink within 6 weeks.

  1. The lawyers for the 7 Network and the ACMA ‘investigators’ both decided that this was not crucial information for the welfare recipients receiving Centrelink’s Letter of Demand which also makes no mention of this law!  The deliberate concealment of this law has enabled Centrelink staff to coerce and intimidate welfare recipients into making repayments.
  2. A real-life example of this cruel scam is found at The person identified by the alias “Harry” in this blog posting is an aged  family member was recently hit with a Centrelink ‘Letter of Demand’ a document that conveniently fails to mention the waiver of debt law that applies if over-payments are due to errors made by Centrelink.
  3. In ‘Harry’s’ own words, “Centrelink is too big, too powerful. You just can’t fight them!”
  4. Intimidated, “Harry” paid up even though he knew that he was being coerced into repaying a debt that he did not have to repay.
  5. Some victims of this shameful mass media assisted fraud neither fought nor paid up; instead they have committed suicide!
  6. It is my contention that under South Australian law, these suicides are either Criminal Negligence or Felony Murders.
  7. In May 2011, a former policeman turned SA MP, Lee Odenwalder, told me that there was no such law as Felony Murder in South Australia.
  8. Earlier this year, upon being given a 2006 trail summary of a felony Murder conviction, he referred my concerns to the SA Attorney-General.
  9. The response from the then acting Attorney-General, John Rau, totally ignored the systemic fraud allegations; his decision was that as there was “no violence” involved in these deaths, they were not felony murders.
  10. Presumably, using that logic, Jacintha Saldanha’s death was a ‘non-violent’ death?
Sometimes doing nothing is a crime, a fact of law that the ACMA studiously ignored in an effort to exonerate a television station that had both hidden breaching fatalities and which was hiding a law that enabled Centrelink officials to defraud welfare recipients. Is that "Accessory after the fact?"

Sometimes doing nothing is a crime, a fact of law that the ACMA studiously ignored in an effort to exonerate a television station that had both hidden breaching fatalities and which was hiding a law that enabled Centrelink officials to defraud welfare recipients.


According to the ACMA, SAS 7 had done no wrong by withholding crucial information; a viewpoint that ignores a number of well known points of criminal law:

  1. If you withhold information during a criminal investigation, that is Obstruction of Justice.
  2. If you withhold information when giving testimony under oath, that is Perjury.
  3. If you withhold crucial information when issuing a share prospectus or an insurance policy, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) will prosecute you for Misrepresentation.
  4. If an out-of-control wildfire races towards a small rural community and radio stations refuse to broadcast a warning, that is Criminal Negligence.

 “CORRESPONDENCE…(After having avoided interviewing the plaintiff and victims) …I AM OF THE OPINION”:

“Correspondence” is the key in the word that concisely sums up just how the ACMA investigators work on a case. They only investigate written complaints and DO NOT talk to plaintiffs, victims or witnesses.

  1. The opinions formed by Ms Zurnamer and her team of  so called ‘investigators’ are thus based upon whatever is put in writing whilst the lawyers for the “Co-regulators”, i.e. the broadcasters, can chat with ACMA investigators and express their legal opinions of the merits of complaints.
  2. The plaintiffs are deliberately ostracized; a process also utilized by the AFP when dealing with complaints against federal politicians.
  3. ACMA Report 2780 is basically a massive Abuse of Due Process that does nothing other than bring Australia’s bizarre criminal justice system into further disrepute. (Once Centrelink is forced to divulge the unreported post breaching fatalities data, this report will exposed for the sham that it is.)
  4. Given the clearly documented bias and the extremely dubious competence of the ACMA, neither Jacintha’s family nor the City of London Coroner should rely upon the quality or impartiality of any ‘investigation’ that may be conducted by Ms. Zurnamer and her team of ’cafe latte investigators’.


Matt Hall is the Assistant Secretary or the Human Rights in the Australian Government’s Attorney-General’s Office . His letter reinforces the ACMA statements that Socio-Economic Vilification is not unlawful, i.e. “…there is no explicit ground of discrimination on the basis of socio-economic vilification.” It does not get much clearer than that does it? The deliberate and malicious socio-economic vilification of Australia’s unemployed and disabled is not unlawful.

This letter from a very senior official in the Australian Attorney-General's office makes it quite clear that socio-economic vilification is not unlawful. Is it any wonder that a mass media that wants to "trump the regulators" ruthlessly abuses this freedom?

This letter from a very senior official in the Australian Attorney-General’s office makes it quite clear that socio-economic vilification is not unlawful. Is it any wonder that a mass media that wants to “trump the regulators” ruthlessly abuses this freedom?

In the 1970s, the United States, Great Britain, Australia and many other countries around the world introduced anti-discrimination legislation that prohibited vilification on the basis of sex, race, religion, etc. Remarkably, 36 years after this anti-discrimination legislation was introduced in Australia, socio-economic vilification is effectively the ONLY form of vilification that is not unlawful; a loop hole in federal legislation that Australia’s mass media exploits ruthlessly in order to demonize and vilify welfare recipients as parasites who are “riding the welfare gravy train” at taxpayers expense. (See ACMA Report 2729 for more specific details of this type of ACMA ‘approved’ vilification.)


  1. Vilification, whether by individuals, organizations or even national governments, is deliberately and maliciously intended to hurt the target of that vilification in some way, i.e. demean, demoralize, demonize, defame or impugn. When the mass media does it, it is an incredibly powerful, dehumanizing and emotionally damaging process!
  2. This raises the question as to why legislation does not exist to prevent this sort of activity by the mass media?
  3. The Human Rights Commission solution suggested by Matt Hall does not work as the Australian Human Rights & Equal Rights Commission (HREOC) is effectively a paper tiger that is powerless to help those who live in poverty and must live with both basic constitutional rights and human rights being violated by the Australian Federal Government.
  4. As both Matt Hall’s letter and ACMA Report 2729 make quite clear, the activity is not unlawful and therefore the HREOC cannot act, a fact confirmed by the HREOC correspondence below.

HREOC COMPLAINT KMc/2013986FC: “no jurisdiction”.

Matt Hall’s almost naive faith in the Human Rights Commission is grossly misplaced as the following copy of the HREOC response to a complaint, file# KMc/2013986FC, which was lodged with HREOC in August 2003.

  1. That such a senior official who is responsible for such a sensitive portfolio should be unaware of the points below is alarmingly disturbing.
  2. The response below is from page 2 of a letter dated 2nd October 2003. Please note the first paragraph, “no jurisdiction”, and the last paragraph which states, “…many of the acts about which you complain are not “acts or practices or practices of the Commonwealth” and therefore are not matters about which the Commission can inquire.
Knowing that Breaching legislation was unconstitutional and that it was also totally inconsistent  with the principle of "nemo iudex in causia sua", parliament cut of systemic avenues of succor for the potential victims of this massive fraud.

Knowing that Breaching legislation was unconstitutional and that it was also totally inconsistent with the principle of “nemo iudex in causia sua”, parliament cut of systemic avenues of succor for the potential victims of this massive fraud.

So much for the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission providing aid and succor to Australia’s vulnerable, impoverished welfare community. Who else may be able to help? How about the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.


In May 2012 a comprehensive complaint was lodged with the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (OCO) that covered the 2004 and 2009 refusal of the AFP to investigate Quotagate, Travelgate and  Perksgate, both the ACMA investigative process and the decisions contained in ACMA reports 2729 and 2780, and the constitutionally validity of the former breaching legislation and its current successor, ‘Compliance Failure Penalties’, a new name for Breaching that introduced perhaps to distance the government of the day from the Howard Government’s lethal Breaching Quotas activity?)

"Abandon hope all ye who enter in these doors" is a sign that should be above the front door of every Centrelink office. Even the Commonwealth Ombudsman is powerless to help welfare recipients.

“Abandon hope all ye who enter in these doors” is a sign that should be above the front door of every Centrelink office. Even the Commonwealth Ombudsman is powerless to help welfare recipients.

  1. Since the OCO’s charter does not allow it to investigate issues more than 12 months old, (a nice legal technicality), it could not do anything about the refusal of the AFP to investigate these well documented frauds.
  2. Because there is no law against socio-economic vilification and because the ACMA was of the (investigation-free) “opinion” that SAS 7 had not broken the law, the OCO upheld the ACMA decisions.
  3. However, perhaps because of Neil Skill’s ground breaking admission that Centrelink had not collected the post breaching fatalities statistics, this may have caused enough concern in the OCO so that, for the 1st time in 10 years of raising these issues, a senior public servant actually spoke to me and conceded that the Breaching/Compliance Failure Penalties legislation was inconsistent with the Residual Powers of the High Court as set out in Paragraph 75 (iii) of the Constitution.
  4. I promptly requested that this viewpoint be sent to me in writing and a copy of that letter is above.
  5.  “…your worry that aspects of the legislation giving rise to breaching decisions made by Centrelink were ultra vires (i.e. beyond the power of Federal Parliament to legislate). I advised you that an investigation of this kind is beyond the jurisdiction of this office.
  6. What Geoffrey Bridgland actually advised me was that the OCO’s charter prohibits it from challenging the constitutional validity of federal legislation in the High Court.
  7. The legislation needs to be challenged in the High Court so that it can be overturned and millions of breached welfare recipients compensated.
  8. This is a  major National Interest issue, since a High Court challenge can easily cost $500,000 or more, I cannot afford the crippling cost of undertaking this challenge. 
  9. Neither can any welfare recipients for the simple reason that people who have access to $500,000 in cash do not qualify for a welfare benefit!
  10. How’s that for a classic Catch 22 scenario?


In the 18th century Great Britain’s middle and upper classes effectively made Poverty a msocietal crime, with those convicted of poverty driven ‘crimes‘ either being hanged or else being exported/deported/transported to the colonies. After the American War of Independence, that meant ‘exporting’ the poverty stricken to the far side of the world, i.e. Australia.

  1. The “dole cheats”, “dole bludgers”, welfare gravy train” comments that are constantly being churned out by the Australian mass media  effect, make it quite clear that in Australia in the 21st century, NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
  2. Each year, Australia’s welfare recipients provide billions of dollars worth of community voluntary work, child care and aged care support and engage in countless activities that benefit the nation in ways that cannot be commercially quantified, e.g. coach junior football team, etc, they are deliberately portrayed in the mass media as lazy, social pariahs who “bludge” off of hard working taxpayers.
  3. In Nazi Germany, Hitler initially used the mass media to vilify Jews in precisely the same manner, i.e. as parasites on the national economy. It is a recorded fact of history that once marginalized, the Jewish community was then vilified and portrayed as “life unworthy of life.
  4. Beyond that point was the Holocaust!
  5. What Australia’s incredibly biased right wing mass media is doing so enthusiastically is charging full speed down the same targeted vilification road, doing precisely the same thing as happened in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.
  6. Vilification of targeted societal minority groups by the mass media is dangerous; incredibly dangerous, but in Australia, 36 years after anti-vilification laws were introduced, there are no laws that prevent the mass media from engaging in this dangerously reprehensible activity.
  7. It should be a matter of grave international concern that the avenues of aid and succor that should be providing protection and relief to Australia’s poor simply do not exist.
  8. Socio-economic vilification is not only unlawful; thanks to ACMA Report 2729, mass media vilification has the callously indifferent official stamp of approval from the ACMA whilst protective agencies such as the OCO and the Human Rights Commission’s charters prevent them from intervening to protect the poor and vulnerable who are the targets of this vilification.
  9. Please, once again consider very carefully the extract from Neil Skill’s comment that I placed at the beginning of this posting:AAAAA01 Neil Skills Centrelink does not collect clip What DSS and Centrelink management did not “collect” and report for decades is a death toll that now may well be 2 – 4 times the 9/11 death toll. Constantly vilified by the media and exploited by unconstitutional legislation that exhibits a total indifference to the humanitarian consequences of breaching activity,
  1. Australia’s poorest have become ”fair game” and as a consequence, too many have become “dead meat.” Legislators worked in concert with the mass media and when Poverty put the poor on the gallows, the mass media was only too happy to put the noose around the neck of the unemployed with salvos of belittling, demeaning, soul destroying, vilification by both the print media and the broadcast media.
  2. The administrative action of Breaching was effectively Centrelink removing the only means of support, i.e. opening the gallows trapdoor.
  3. Under such circumstances, with millions of Breaching penalties and Compliance Failure penalties issued, often for the most trivial of reasons, it is therefore no surprise that some emotionally fragile and vulnerable, financially impoverished people did was reasonably foreseeable when breached, i.e. they committed suicide.
  4. It is also equally no surprise that as the death toll has risen over the years, those who either promoted the lethal breaching activity joined forced with the politicians and bureaucrats who actually causing these deaths to occur, to take steps to ensure that the general public has been left totally ignorant of this humanitarian disaster.
  5. In practice, this meant that the DSS and then Centrelink did not collect the post breaching fatalities data and the mass media never complained about the lack of human impact data in annual reports,
  6. In Queensland, politicians, public servants and even the police, hid the 87 deaths that occurred in one isolated rural country town in a little over 2 years.

Breaching activity is Queensland’s ‘Dr. Death’ writ large. Once you understand the political and bureaucratic reasons why the Bundaberg death toll was so high in such a short period of time, you will have some insight into how, over a time frame measured in decades, a Covert Holocaust has traumatized the lives of millions and resulted in the deaths of a lot more than  87 people.


The problem with a regulatory environment where the mass media, with very strong justification, sees itself as being above and beyond the law and has a free reign in which to ‘offend, insult, humiliate, intimidate or exploit the nation’s poor without fear of being held accountable for all but the most extreme transgressions is a very, very dangerous situation. 

  1. That fact any penalties that may apply for EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE conduct are tantamount to the equivalent of being “whipped with a feather” only serves to heighten the risk that a media entity will overstep the mark with tragic consequences for such an regulatory environment breeds contempt,
  2. In an environment where the mass media CEOs also believe that “market forces” justify any action so long as it produces a profit, only an absolute idiot would fail to recognize the potentially dangerous consequences of such a partisan compliance system created.
  3. In that regulatory environment, Jacintha was as much “fair game” as any welfare recipient.
  4. 2day FM’s sole focus was to do something that would generate rating, which in turn would translate into market advantage, i.e. commercial profit.
  5. Although the deliberate intention was not to so demoralize Jacintha that she would take her own life, the end result of 2Day FM’s action was as lethal as any of the current “dole bludger/dole cheat” media beat-ups that the ACMA and their “co-regulators” so callously condone.
  6. Jacintha’s death was essentially just “collateral damage” in the hunt for better radio station ratings.
  7. Thus when 2Day FM decided to “trump the regulators” and ignore Privacy Laws that prohibit the secret recording of phone conversations, the arrogance and hubris that is a signature component of Australia’s mass media, meant that whoever answered the 2Day FM phone call was in harms way.
  8. No matter who answered the phone call, whoever was duped was going to be hurt in one way or another in front of a global audience!
  9. 2Day FM just not did expect the hurt to be so bad that Jacintha would, like so many vulnerable welfare recipients, be pushed over the edge and driven to such despair that she would take her own life.


If the scam had been successful, Austereo shareholders would have been happy to have benefited from improved ratings  with the flow-on benefit of improved corporate profits, i.e. a higher return to shareholders or higher share values. It is therefore only logical and fair that shareholders should pay a price for such recklessly illegal attempts to “trump the regulators.

I believe that in the determination of a suitable level of compensation, the compensation paid by the Western Australian Government in July 2010 is a reasonable baseline benchmark to work from when determining what is adequate compensation for Jacintha’s family.

  1. The WA Government paid $4.3 Million for an unintended death in custody that involved gross negligence
  2. Jacintha’s death was also unintended but since it involved premeditated criminal negligence, i.e. the secret recording of the phone call and its subsequent broadcast, it is only reasonable and fair to double the penalty to $8.6 Million in punitive damages.
  3. Since Jacintha’s 2 children have lost their legal ‘right of enjoyment’ to their mother, each should receive a similar amount in compensation. In all, an appropriate level of compensation that many US Courts would not find inappropriate is, in total, $25.8 Million.
  4. The Australian mass media is so keen to have the “Only one land of the free” rights enjoyed by the US mass media, and it is thus highly appropriate that the mass media should now ‘enjoy’ the same levels of financial accountability faced by US media organizations when things go fatally wrong!


Like the Global Financial Crisis, Jacintha’s death is a stark, sobering reminder that there is a dark side to the free market economy; it is not all sweetness and light as the supporters of unfettered free markets would have us believe.

Without a shadow of doubt, the most sobering lesson to be learnt from Jacintha’s death is that when Kym Williams made his “…market forces must trump the regulators” speech, he was placing anyone anywhere in the entire  world in danger for the corporate Holy Grail goal of Profit.

Unless regulators around the world heed the warning that Jacintha’s death provides us with and act to reign in this rampant Freebooter mentality, there will be more News of the World fiascoes and more unsuspecting ‘Jacintha’s mortally wounded in the relentless pursuit of corporate profits.


Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy and Her Majesty is the Queen of Australia, a title that carries many obligations to her subjects in Australia.

  1. The significance of the letter from the Australian Vice Regal Office is that the Queen could have, or should have, known that legislation of questionable constitutional validity was killing off her subjects and that the nation’s mass media actively condoned this activity.
  2. Had the Queen asked about this reprehensible activity, this royal scrutiny by the Head of State may have forced changes that would have prevented the attack upon the privacy of a member of her family.
  3. At the very least, this scrutiny would have encouraged a much more cautious and compassionate manner in dealing with Australia’s most vulnerable, impoverish citizens.
  4. This failure to take action when action was required eventually resulted in the inevitable, reckless activities by Australia’s mass media that would overflow the national boundaries and someone, somewhere, getting  hurt.

Let’s also call a ‘spade’ a ‘spade’: Reality #1 in this whole affair is that the 2Day FM phone call was most definitely NOT a prank.

  1. It was the carefully considered action of a commercial organization with a “trump the regulators” mindset that was seeking a commercial advantage by actively endeavouring to access confidential medical information about a member of the British Royal Family, i.e. it was a commercially motivated attack upon the Royal Family that had resulted in a fatal outcome!
  2. In a very real sense, by failing to scrutinize the actions of Australia’s media in September 2009, the Queen, or her Vice Regal representative, had unwittingly made possible an attack upon the Crown by an Australian commercial mass media entity in December 2012.
  3. Jacintha Saldanha was the ‘hospital ‘sentry’ who died as a direct consequence of that preventable attack.
  4. The flow-on consequence is that this Christmas, 2 young people will be without their mother because of an attack that decisive action by the Crown in 2009 would quite probably have prevented.

I hope that Her Majesty will take that last point on-board and then respond appropriately; there are 2 young people who need both an apology and an explanation as to why their mother was in the line of fire from a “cowboy” Australian radio station in the first place.

Ronald Medlicott. GDA, Dip T, Cert FLM. (Christian advocate of welfare justice.)

ADVANCE NOTICE: PART 3b: An Absence of Justice  – For some, the “lucky Country” is anything but lucky.

What you have just read about Australia’s Covert Holocaust  may seem to be totally unbelievable, the product of a twisted and demented mind. However, the history of Australia since European settlers first arrived in 1786 is a history that is littered with similar, or even far worse, humanitarian disasters. This blog is already way to long and so I have split it into parts A and B in order to provide readers with a background situational awareness of the strange mindset of Australia’s apathetic middle class voters who have passively condoned and supported some truly horrific humanitarian disasters.

Who knows, maybe I’ll get lucky, and someone from the United Nations Human Rights Commission will read these blogs, or the City of London Coroner will formally acknowledge the role played by Australia’s outrageous media compliance ‘environment’ in creating the chain of circumstances and events that eventually resulted in the death of Jacintha Saldanha. If that happens, then Jacintha’s death may help to end this covert holocaust and a shamed nation can then confront the painful issues of apologizing to almost 4 million victims survivors.

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

3 Responses to The role of Australia’s mass media regulations in the death of Jacintha Saldanha: Part 3a: The ‘other’ Buckingham Palace connection.

  1. Very good post! We will be linking to this particularly great article on our website.
    Keep up the good writing.

  2. Very nice blog post. I absolutely love this site.
    Continue the good work!

  3. Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wished to say
    that I have really loved browsing your weblog posts. After all I will be subscribing to your rss feed and I’m hoping you write again soon!

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