Given the choice between owning up to a mistake they had made that could cost taxpayers up to $11.4 Billion in compensation, or committing a Crime against Humanity by voting in support of “statutory fiction”, human rights violating legislation that would hopefully legitimize their mistake, what did these politicians do?
- You guessed it; they opted go for the Crime Against Humanity option! After all, no-one other than ‘dole bludgers’ would be affected so who would care?
- The answer to the question of who would care was very simple; the 15,000 people who had their legal, constitutional and human rights trashed.
- In fact, Kelli Keating cared enough to fight her phony conviction all the way up to the High Court where, on May 8th 2013, the High Court did the honourable thing and turfed-out the reprehensible retrospective legislation that these people had deliberately put in place to hide their incompetence as legislators.
[NOTE: The short link for this URL is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-gj ]
This overt humanitarian violation of the rights of 15,000 people who they though were too poor to fight back raises the very obvious question as to what other human rights violating dirty tricks have they been up to since they first became members of Australia’s Federal Parliament?
I would suggest that one of the most ruthlessly vile and dirty tricks was “Quotagate” and it is now time to put this massive Crime Against Humanity under the microscope of public scrutiny.
What was/is QUOTAGATE?
Read the following extract from a press release that was issued by an Opposition MP, Chery Kernot, in June 2000 when the Howard Government was in power. This press is what I am in part referring to when I use the term “QUOTAGATE.”
“QUOTAGATE” was the Howard Government deliberately misusing its lawful authority to impose illegal “Performance Indicator Targets, i.e. arbitrary “Breach of Contract” quotas on unsuspecting welfare recipients.
- Between the 1st July 2000 and the 30th June 2001, a staggering, world record, 346,078 “Breach of Contract penalties were issued by Centrelink.
- Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) deals with crimes that either “an Act of Commission“, or alternatively, “an Act of Omission” that is “intended to provide a person or an organization with “a financial advantage or benefit that (the accused) was not entitled to receive”.
- If you do not tell the tax office that you earned $100,000 last year so that you do not have to pay any income tax, then that is “an Act of Omission”.If some-one sticks a gun in your face and says “hand over your money”, that is an “Act of Commission”.
- In an effort to meet these quotas, Centrelink staff resorted to the most trivial of excuses, e.g. if some-one was on their way to a job interview and the bus was running 10-minutes late, then the late arrival at the job interview was “a breach of contract“.
- If an employer did not like the way a person was dressed for a job interview, or if the employer “thought” that the job applicant was not enthusiastic enough, that was “a breach of contract“.
- The Howard Government even set up an Employer Reporting Hotline so that employers could “dob in a dole bludger“.
- I kid you not! That is just how extremely unjust this blatant fraud was.
It is a basic principle of both Common Law and Case Law that you do not sit in judgement on any case or dispute in which you had a vested interest. The “Quotagate” fraud worked with the shallow, ostensible appearance of impartiality with the Department of Employment making the Breach of Contract allegation and the Department of Social Security, (now the Department of Human Services), making the judgement and applying the penalty which was turning off welfare payments for 3 months.
Needless to say, when you do that at a rate of 3 times per minute during Public Service working hours for an entire year, the “savings” mount up as this extract from on of Centrelink’s annual reports reveals.
What you are looking at here is effectively “the proceeds of a crime” that was, through the illegal enforcement of breaching quotas, “an Act of Commission“, that was “intended to provide the Howard Government with “a financial advantage or benefit that the Howard Government was not entitled to receive”.
- I do not know when this fraudulent activity started or ended, but the clear message from the above figures makes it obvious that this fraud was a veritable gold mine.
- $765,400,000 in FY 2000-01;
- $867,200,000 in FY 2001-02.
- You know what they say, “A hundred million here, a hundred million there; pretty soon you are talking about real money”.
- NOTE: welfare recipients are NOT clients as far as Centrelink management is concerned; so what are they?
In the 2-year period from 1st July 2000 to 30th June 2002, we are talking about a mind-blowing $1,632,600,000, i.e. over 1.6 BILLION DOLLARS. I do not know about you, but in my book, that is “real money” by the bucket load.
- Thanks in part to this massive fraud, John Howard and his treasurer, Peter Costello, called this “Sound Economic Management”.
- I called it “fraud” then and I still call it “fraud” today.
- This was Reverse Robin Hood politics at its very worst, for what did John Howard do with this trainload of ill-gotten gain?
- Why, he used it to give tax cuts to the rich and again called it (you guessed it) “Sound Economic Management”.
Greed eventually got the better of the Howard Government and these so called “Honourable Ministers” tried to double up the breaching penalty from 13 weeks to 26 weeks. Fortunately, even the Labour and Australian Democrat politicians who held the balance of power in the Senate could see that this would unleash a humanitarian disaster that even the most hard-hearted of voters would notice, and so they used their numbers in the Senate to reduce the breaching penalty to 8 weeks.
- While that sounds great, the reality is that Paragraph 51(xxiii)(a) of the Australian Constitution places an obligation on the Federal Parliament to PROVIDE a welfare allowance to the unemployed.
- The constitution does NOT give the Federal Parliament the power to DEPRIVE a welfare recipient of an allowance if they are unemployed.
Hey Ron, aren’t you being a bit nit-picky there?
- No, I am not because the “exact words” logic was used by the Australian High Court in the Keating Decision, i.e. the “statutory fiction” decision that it handed down on May 8th.
- In June, a Federal Court judge, Steven Rares gave a speech at a law administrators conference and he specifically stated that when deciding the merits of Commonwealth vs. Keating case, the judge(s)t paid close attention to the “clear words” of the legislation that was in dispute.
- The essence of truth is proof: You will find a large extract from this speech that contains the “clear words” quote posted at the Human Rights Law Centre’s website: http://www.hrlc.org.au/category/primary/opinion
- Even if the Federal Parliament did have the power to “DEPRIVE” a person of a benefit due to an alleged “breach of contract”, Paragraph 75 (iii) of the constitution places legal actions such as suing for an alleged breach of contract disputes between the Commonwealth and any other legal entity, e.g. unemployed people, in the hands of the High Court.
- This power is perfectly logical, for it is totally untenable that a Federal Government should be sitting in judgement on its alleged breach of contract disputes, especially when the government stand to gain billions of dollars in savings or revenue!
- Yet that is precisely what happened with QUOTAGATE and still continues to happen today, i.e Complaince Failures are “alleged” breaches of contract and Centrelink should not, as a Federal Government agency, be involved in making any judgements about these allegations.
- Under paragraph 51 (xxiii)(a) of the Australian Constitution, Centrelink’s job is just to “PROVIDE” welfare benefits to clients!
- Under the Separation of Powers in the constitution, Centrelink has no judicial powers because even the Federal Parliament does not have such powers under the constitution to act as judge and jury and its agency, Centrelink, has no greater powers than the parliament.
“Breaching” is officially “out” because its legality has been challenged and has been replaced by “Serious Compliance Failure Penalties”. This is just our feral federal politicians playing with words as they find another way to deliberately violate the constitutional, legal, and human rights of welfare recipients because when you get right down to it, “Compliance Failure” is just another way of saying “Breaching” i.e. a unilaterally applied Breach of Contract penalty” which is just unconstitutional “statutory fiction” legislation.
To think that these people call themselves “Honourable”. Don’t they know that there is no such thing as “Honour amongst thieves”?
When you deliberately deprive vulnerable, impoverished people of their only means of being able to meet their “basic costs of living” for a period of 3 months, it should come as no surprise that if you do it at a rate of 3-per-minute for a year or more, then their will be an awful number of fatalities. So how many died from the illegal breaching quota activity?Well, as you can see from this extract from a letter written which was written by a senior Centrelink official, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill, on May 18th 2010, Centrelink does not bother to collect the statical data on post breaching fatalities is therefore “unable to assist” with my request for this data.
- In the time that Tony Abbott was the Employment Minister, about 1 million breach penalties were issued which is why I think of him as “The Million Breaches Man”.
- Since each breach involves 2 violations of constitutional rights, I suppose I could call him something based upon that statistic. Any ideas?
- However, since each breach penalty also involves about 20 human rights violations, I guess he also qualifies at “The 20 Million <something?> Man” as well. All ideas welcome on that as well.
Enough of this name game stuff. Ron, call the cops! Well, actually I did, and here is their totally unbelievable response:
Sorry, we are flat out trying to catch the unemployed people who are ripping off the system and don’t have time to catch the politicians who are ripping off and killing the unemployed.
- Note the bit about “If an inquiry identifies…”
- Well, one way to make sure that an inquiry does not identify anything that is political “gravity/sensitivity” is to NOT hold an inquiry and that is precisely what the Australian Federal Police did, i.e. THEY DID NOTHING ABOUT THESE MURDERS!
- That is why I ask whether or not the Australian Federal Police let the Howard Government get away with mass murder.
Ron, what about the Opposition politicians? Surely they would have a field day with this stuff?
- Well, at first thought, that does seem logical but you need to remember just who voted for the “statutory fiction” legislation that was trashed by the High Court. Both the Labour Party and the Liberal-National Coalition voted for that Crime Against Humanity.
- Sadly, the same is true for the statutory fiction breaching legislation and the current Compliance Failure legislation.
- Australia’s political parties ran the human rights violating “Stolen Generation” legislation for a 100 years or so and they have been running the breaching scam virtually ever since they were forced to drop the “Stolen Generation” scheme.
- Basically both the “Stolen Generation” and Breaching/Compliance Failure legislation were/are all about creating a bogeyman, pariah group in society that the politicians can slap around and appear to be doing something good that complacent, ill-informed middle class voters approve of.
- Do you think that these politicians would have voted to violate the rights of 15,000 welfare recipients if they thought that the majority of voters would disapprove?
- They did it because they knew that the majority of uncaring middle class voters would approve of what the did!
The fact that 75% of voters don’t care two hoots about these human rights violations is why Australia’s feral federal politicians are such as self-serving bunch of anything but honourable politicians. Cop the response when I dropped the QUOTAGATE issue on the Senate’s prestigious Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee in November 2005:
Go to the Australian Parliament website and drill down from here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=legcon_ctte/ctte_info/index.htm
- Look for the 2004-2005 tab and the link to the November 2005 Anti-Terrorism Bill No 2 inquiry. Then locate the submissions tab and scroll down to submission 287.
- This submission is listed as “Not yet available, but as the above letter from the Senate Committee makes quite clear, the submission is classified as “confident” and I am prohibited from making and distributing copies of my public submission.
Parliamentary Privilege was granted by the Crown so that members of the British Parliament could expose corruption in high places. Unfortunately, what this and other Senate Committees have done is misuse that privilege to conceal corruption in high places.As far as I am concerned, the secret confidential classification of submission 287 is all about our feral federal politicians misusing this power to pervert the course of justice so that they do not get nailed for fraud and mass murder.
- Check out this letter from John Howard’s former Justice Minister, Chris Ellison.
“No evidence” in the Travelgate case? Check this out!
What Trish Draper did was a clear violation of Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Codes Act because she left her defacto-spouse at home to look after her kids and trotted off to Europe with a “young gentleman” in tow. When she returned to Australia, she picked up the tab for that person’s travel by claiming that he was her defacto-spouse.
- Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) deals with crimes that either “an Act of Commission” that is “intended to provide a person with “a financial advantage or benefit that they are not entitled to receive”.
- In this instance we are looking at Trish Draper probably committing an Act of Commission“, i.e.she “ provided herwith “a financial advantage or benefit that she was not entitled to receive”.
- The benefit that she received was the company of a “young gentleman” on a fact finding trip to Europe at taxpayers expense.
- Remember, the Federal Police were too busy chasing alleged welfare rorters to have time to deal with Travelgate.
- The legal term for what the Federal Police did, apart from deliberately obstruct justice, was to act in a manifestly biased manner by ignoring politicians who rort the system and solely focus upon welfare recipients.
CAN THEY DO THAT?
Paragraph 5 of the constitution has some very “clear words” (to quote Justice Rares) on this issue. It states that “the Law is binding on the people”.
- You cannot get much clearer wording than that; “BINDING”.
- The cops should have investigated.
- The technical legalities from here on are huge,.
- If you are being prosecuted by Centrelink or the cops for fraud, or even for an unlawful killing, you should be thinking very seriously about subpoenaing me.
- Talk to your lawyer about the “Leck vs. Morris; Keating vs. Morris” decision which was handed down by Justice Moynihan in the Queensland Supreme Court on September 1st, 2005.
If you are one of the 15,000 people caught up in the “stautory fiction” human rights violation, you need to know about “Trevorrow vs. Crown” (the landmark Stolen Generation case $760,000), Mabo 1 in 1988 re “the right of enjoyment to equality before the law”, and Knight vs. Crown (an SA Supreme Court) decision handed down on March 7th 2013.
In the Knight case, Dr Knight was wrongfully sacked and sued for $1 Million in 2011. When the court handed down its findings in March this year, he was awarded $3.7 MILLION in damages and $640,000 in costs. WE are talking BIG MONEY here but this time it is the little guys who are getting it!
RAYMOND AKHTAR ALI.
Raymond Akhtar Ali is one of the “little guys” who outraged the nation last week when he was awarded $3,000 in compensation because he is a Muslim who was not being served Halal meals in prison. His case highlights the problem of violating the human rights of people, even if they are convicted child killers. The problem is that while everyone is up in arms about this payment, no-one is thinking through the flow-on implications:
- Every person of every religious persuasion who is in prison now has a legal precedent to support a similar claim. (Nice one Raymond!)
- Every prison in the nation, at taxpayers expense, will have to now aviod making a similar mistake.
- QUOTAGATE – what happens when Raymond gets his hands on the QUOTAGATE documents? Has anyone though that through in detail?
- Combine the Leck vs. Morris; Keating vs. Morris with the mountain of documents in which various investigative agencies all give excuses for turning a blind eye and Raymond has the “Manifest Ostensible Bias case from Hell!
- If he is successful in an appeal, he can then use “Trevorrow” and the “Knight” decisions to sue for wrongful imprisonment.
- As he laughs all the way to the bank, every other prisoner in jail, or who has ever been in jail, will be two steps behind.
QUOTAGATE MUST BE INVESTIGATED.
I hope that you have found this posting informative. Remember the old biblical adage, Test everything and only keep what is good” because it applies to EVERYTHING posted on the Internet including my stuff.
Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for Justice in Australia.