Beyond the High Court’s ‘Jailgate’ Decision: The Australian National Audit Office gives welfare recipients the ‘One-finger-salute’. The question is, Why?

Close the gateBill Bonney, a senior Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) official has demonstrated that when it comes to closing gates that should not be closed, and also in giving Australian welfare recipients a one-finger-salute, Australia’s public servants are experts are truly world class experts.

[Note: the short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-fm _

In May 2013, I wrote to the Australian Federal Auditor-General requesting information about the politicians involved in the “Perksgate” rort that he had identified in a report tabled in parliament in September 2009. I also wrote requesting a forensic audit of Centrelink’s customer database  in order to determine the number of post breaching fatalities that DSS nor Centrelink  management teams had failed to include in public accountability reports.

  1. The rest of this blog is in 3 parts:
  2. An extract from my letter to the Auditor-General requesting information about the “Perksgate” rorting that the Australian Federal Police flatly refuse to investigate for the most crass, spurious  and shallow of reasons.
  3. Bill Bonney’s response which I regard as a one-finger-salute response to welfare recipients.
  4. My response to Bill Bonney’s letter.

I leave it readers to decide for themselves if I am over-reacting to Bill Bonney’s response. Keep in mind that if I am right, ANYONE, I repeat, ANYONE, could use Bill Bonney’s response and the other ‘3-blind-mice’ resp[onses from Australian law enforcement agencies as a “Manifest Ostensible Bias” defense if facing prosecution.

  1. BROAD ULTRA VIRES: Welfare recipients facing prosecution can most certainly use this material, but so can anyone else, including Peter Slipper, Craig Thomson, Dr Jayant Patel or anyone facing any criminal charge, no matter how serious it may be.
  2. So, if you think that it is OKAY for Tony Abbott not to be held accountable for any ‘Performance Indicator Target’ fatalities, then you are accepting that alleged rapist and child molesters should also not be held accountable.
  3. Broad Ultra Vires is about law enforcement officers and bureaucrats with investigative powers who do not uphold the law, deliberately apply it in a biased manner, or use shallow, ostensible excuses to ignore gross injustices.
  4. Such non-feasant stupidity undermines our nation’s criminal justice system and if politicians are above the law, then the principle of “Equality before the Law” means that everyone else is entitled to the same treatment.
  5. In practical terms, this means that there is no law.

Part One: A request to the Auditor-General for information concealed from the public.

“As elected officials holding public office, Parliamentarians are expected to act with integrity in accordance with the public trust placed in them.”

Source: Page 12, Auditor-General’s Report No.3 2009-10. Audit Report – Administration of Parliamentarians’ Entitlements by the Department of Finance and Regulation.

 

Whether or not I participate in the trial of Peter Slipper, I intend to highlight to a court the double standards in which politicians who may have wilfully defrauded the Commonwealth by obtaining a benefit by deception usually have their actions treated as an “administrative error” whilst welfare recipients are presumed to have engaged a deliberate act of welfare fraud.

 

Therefore, I request specific details of the “elected officials” who failed to act in accordance with the integrity which the public expects.

 1.     Who were the 144 politicians who were audited by the ANAO
2.     How much, if anything, did each of these individuals wrongfully claim and have to repay?
3.     How many were treated “administratively” by the Department of Finance and how many were referred to the Australian Federal Police?
4.     Can you confirm t6he following details about federal politicians having to repay public moneys “erroneously” spent?

  • Trish Draper: She allegedly who took a young gentleman overseas at taxpayers expense for a fact finding trip
  • Julia Gillard: $438. Julia apparently used her cab charge card 10 times to pay for a taxi to take her mum home. How sweet of Julia to care for mum at taxpayers expense.
  • Tony Burke: Almost $7,000 in payments involving ‘family travel’.
  • Dennis Jensen: $13,411.
  • Catherine King: $1,881
  • Alexander Downer: $5,468

 Since I have raised these questions with Peter Slipper, it is highly likely that he will be seeking the same information as part of his defence and therefore I recommend that you obtain and forward this information a.s.a.p. and then keep it handy for when Mr Slipper submits his request for this information.

============================================================

Part Two: The ANAO Response to the request for information.

7-06-13 ANAO Bill Bonney letter

Part Three: My Comments:

Refusing to provide information about politicians who may have defrauded the commonwealth by obtaining a benefit by deception, i.e. ripped us off, is simply not on! With an election just 3 months away, we are entitled to know who ripped us off so that we can factor this in when deciding to vote. In addition, hiding this information prevents welfare recipients who are being prosecuted for allegedly ripping off Centrelink are being deliberately deprived of information that may be CRITICAL to their ability to mount an effective “Manifest Ostensible Bias” defense!

Below is a draft of my response which outlines in more detail what I think of Bill Bonney’s response. Am I over-reacting, or do I make valid points? I guess the answer to that question depends upon whether or not you believe that Justice should be blind, fair and impartial.

Draft of my response to Bill Bonney’s letter:

Thank you for your letter dated 7 June 2013.

As you can see, I have scanned it as a JPEG image and by the time that you receive this letter I will have posted it on my ‘Ronald’s Space’ website along with a copy of this letter to you.

In view of the content of your letter, I have also sent copies to Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper, both of whom may find your response to be most useful. The reality is that whilst lawful transactions by politicians are subject to confidentiality provisions, transactions that are fraudulent are subject to full public disclosure; I am sure you are familiar with the old adage, “To be done, Justice must be seen to be done”.

Therefore, when it comes to politicians who fail to measure up to the Auditor-General’s expectations and the general public’s expectations, Transparency is crucial. I would remind you that it was not me who made the following statement but the Auditor-General:

“As elected officials holding public office, Parliamentarians are expected to act with integrity in accordance with the public trust placed in them.”[1]

I strongly recommend that you carefully read the appended documents that have been provided to the Federal Police and which are also posted on my website at

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-eZ

In your first paragraph you write about “alleged poor decisions or mismanagement.” Make no mistake; I am referring to federal politicians who ripped off the public purse misused their lawful authority for the express purpose of defrauding welfare recipients of legitimate welfare entitlements. Under Section 18 of the NSW Crimes Act (1900) and the SA Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935), any deaths resulting from fraudulent activity are Felony Murders, a crime with no statute of limitations.

In Victoria, which does not have a felony murder statute, any fraudulently triggered breaching fatalities are probably “Manslaughter due to criminal Negligence.” Therefore, the issue of the unreported post breaching fatalities is not, as you state, “alleged poor decisions or mismanagement.” The basic legal issue is the unlawful killings and the role played by DSS and Centrelink management in concealing these fatalities.

In your 2nd paragraph you wrote, “I would expect the Commonwealth Department of Human Services, which is responsible for both the former Department of Social Security and Centrelink, to consider and respond where appropriate.”

They did! On 18th May 2010, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill wrote,

How’s that for a response? When it comes to the disclosure of post breaching fatalities, ever since the first post breaching fatalities occurred decades ago, a plethora of federal government bureaucrats, including Bill Bonney, have churned out a seemingly endless of excuses for not revealing these fatalities.

I strongly recommend that you and your Public Service peers check out the following:

Director Of Public Prosecutions Annual Report 2005-2006, Page 7

http://www.dpp.sa.gov.au/03/2005-2006.pdf

R v Finch – Josiah Finch was charged with the murder of Karim Morrison. Mr Morrison was shot

once to the head in the carpark of the McDonalds restaurant on Anzac Highway at Morphettville

before his body was dumped nearby in one of the entrances to the nearby racecourse. The prosecution

case was that Mr Morrison was shot in the course of a drug rip-off gone wrong. Whilst it was not

alleged that Mr Finch was the shooter, it was alleged that he was present when Mr Morrison was shot

and was instrumental in the arrangements that led to Mr Morrison being in the carpark at the relevant

time. The shooter remains unknown to the prosecution.

Mr Finch was found guilty by a jury. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period

of 14 years. The basis upon which he was sentenced was felony murder. That is, the learned

sentencing judge, who presided at the trial, was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the murder was

not intended or foreseen by Mr Finch, but that it occurred in the course of the commission of a major

indictable offence to which he was party.

Breaching quotas were an indictable offense, i.e. Fraud and therefore bureaucrats who misuse their lawful authority to continue to hide the post breaching fatalities have the potential to score a life sentence with a non-parole period of 15 years. (Josiah had been on remand for year and so he ‘only’ scores a further 14 yearlong non-parole period.)

You wrote, “…the ANAO is currently committed to a heavy program of audits.” Translated, does that means that ANAO bureaucrats, e.g. Bill Bonney, would rather “count coins” than count the casualties caused by unconstitutional[2], human rights violating[3], fraudulent Breaching Quotas activity!

What is the answer to this simple Yes or No question? Does subsection 36(1) of the Auditor-General Act 1997 allow the Auditor-General to conceal fraud and/or murder?

You may have to answer that question in court and therefore you need think very carefully about the issues that I am pushing towards the courts. It is time to ‘get real’ and realize that the unreported, now secretly classified as “confidential”[4], post breaching fatalities are a ticking time bomb. With Centrelink and the AFP working flat out to again prosecute welfare recipients at the rate of ’10 people a day’, the odds are now against any bureaucrats or cops who opt fool themselves into thinking that it would be a good career move to continue to conceal these killings. You are playing the odds and every day they are 10 to 1 against you and anyone else who continues to misuse their lawful authority to hide mass murder. (Right now, it might be time for the A-G and/or yourself to think about a ‘C.Y.A.’ bail-out policy.)

The 2011 and May 2013 “Jailgate” decisions now present those seeking to misuse their lawful authority with a new paradigm, i.e. the High Court is open to ‘national interest’ cases from impoverished welfare recipients. The High Court will also probably not be too pleased to be confronted with the possibility that the legislation contained in the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 was the result of a ‘dirty deal’ between the Howard Government and the AFP leadership, i.e. no investigation of Travelgate and the Quotagate fraud in exchange for the draconian police powers contained in the legislation that High Court ruled was legally valid. Legislation that is the proceeds of crime, i.e. a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, is not legally valid.  I therefore strongly doubt that the High Court will be impressed with the bureaucratic concealment of the post breaching fatalities and the refusal of the AFP to investigate these deaths.

With an election just 3 months away, voters have the democratic right to make an informed decision as to the merits of all candidates standing in the 2013 federal election. Deliberately withholding details of annual post breaching fatalities does far more than constitute a serious case of Obstruction of Justice; it actively undermines our democracy! The ball is now back in your court; either conduct a forensic audit to determine the number of unreported post breaching fatalities, and post-Letter of Demand fatalities, or else risk having to explain to a court why ‘counting coins’ has, for decades, apparently been far more important to the ANAO than counting and reporting the so-far unreported post breaching fatalities.  To also conceal the identities of politicians who may have rorted the public purse whilst Centrelink and the AFP investigate welfare recipients accused of the same crime is Manifest Ostensible Bias, an activity that our nation’s courts do not endorse as the Leck vs. Morris; Keating vs. Morris determination underscored. Impartiality in dealing with alleged rorting is therefore absolutely crucial in your decision making processes.

Yours truly,

Ronald Medlicott (A Christian advocate for Justice.)


[1]   (Source: Page 12, Auditor-General’s Report No.3 2009-10. Audit Report – Administration of Parliamentarians’ Entitlements by the Department of Finance and Regulation.)

[2]  Resolving Breach of Contract disputes between the Commonwealth and another entity is a residual power of the High Court.

[3]  The International Convention on Economic & Social Rights (1976), Article 1, which provides a negative right not to be deprived of the only source of ‘subsistence’.  For many impoverished, emotionally fragile welfare recipients, the welfare allowance was their only source of subsistence.

[4] LEG-CON Senate Committee – November 2005 (Refer to submission 287 to the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry. This secretly classified as ‘confidential’ submission is officially listed as “Not yet available.”

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

2 Responses to Beyond the High Court’s ‘Jailgate’ Decision: The Australian National Audit Office gives welfare recipients the ‘One-finger-salute’. The question is, Why?

  1. At this time it seems like Drupal is the best blogging platform available right now.
    (from what I’ve read) Is that what you are using on your blog?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s