‘Jay’ is an alias for a university student who was emotionally abused and traumatized by the Social Security Administrative Appeals Tribunal system. If you are reading this posting ‘Jay’, I have some ideas for you to consider, so please read on.
BACKGROUND STUFF: On Tuesday 2nd September 2014, shortly before lunch time (in Adelaide), I received an interstate phone call from ‘Jay‘ who briefed me on the appallingly bad treatment that had been meted out by an Administrative Appeals Tribune. In addition to the ancient old ploy of ignoring medical reports from doctors by the simple process of either losing the reports, or not having processed them in time for a review hearing, ‘Jay’ had been subjected to both verbal and written abuse.
Nasty! Very nasty indeed, but not unsurprising at all.
It is important to keep in mind the statement by Centrelink’s Assistant Secretary Neil Skill, that “Centrelink does not collect post breaching terminal outcomes statistics and therefore cannot make them available…” That is a bureaucratic way of saying that Centrelink’s management simply don’t care if you drop dead! If or when you do, they don’t bother to count the either your body or any of the other bodies of those who died as a result of their Rinehart Syndrome insensitivity.
TECH TIP:- to print your own copy of any documents that I embed in my postings, just double click on a document, e.g. the letter below. It should pop up in a new window and you can then use your web browser’s PRINT command to print out a copy.
- At the turn of the century when the Howard Government was defrauding welfare recipients at the rate of 3 per minute through the illegal enforcement of ‘Performance Indicator targets’, i.e. breaching quotas, AROs (Administrative Review Officers) and Administrative Appeals tribunal staff tried to stem this fraud “administratively.”
- This means that they rejected many of the absolutely ludicrous, crazy excuses being used by Centrelink staff to as they tried desperately to meet the Howard Governments breaching quotas.
- In some states, a staggering 86% of appeals were being upheld, which meant that the Howard Government was unable to maximize the financial returns from the breaching quotas rip-off.
- Although it was quite obvious that welfare recipients were being defrauded, the AROs and appeals tribunal staff NEVER reported this activity to the cops, i.e. they did not blow the whistle.
- This failure to take action when action was required meant far more than either Nonfeasance or the loss of both systemic and personal integrity.
- Under Section 18 of the New South Wales Crimes Act (1900) and the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935), any fatalities caused by this fraud may be FELONY MURDERS.
- BECAUSE THESE DEATHS ARE (STILL) UNREPORTED, SECRETLY CLASSIFIED AS (both) “CONFIDENTIAL” and “IRRELEVANT”, the number is unknown. However, suicide data indicates that from this cause alone, there may have been 2,631 fatalities that TONY ABBOTT, Jocelyn Newman and Amanda Vanstone failed to report to Parliament in the period 1st January 2000 to 31st December 2002.
THE GOOD NEWS FOR ‘JAY’ AND OTHERS.
‘Jay’ was abused verbally AND ALSO IN WRITING, and that latter is very significant from a legal perspective.
- No-one was with ‘Jay‘ at the tribunal hearing and that is always a mistake for there is no witness if any verbal abuse should occur – ALWAYS go with someone who can testify on your behalf if the tribunal gets abusive. (Which is far less likely if some-else is present with a pen and notebook taking notes, et cetera.)
- Abuse in writing is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF:
- Abuse of Lawful Authority;
- Procedural Unfairness;
- Manifest Ostensible Bias.
Abuse in writing is legal grounds for claiming A Gross Miss-carriage of Justice which in turn opens the legal door to requesting a full review of the entire process. The Manifest Ostensible Bias mentioned above is backed up by a Queensland Supreme Court case that had profound implications.
The case of Queensland’s Dr Death.
After it was revealed that more than 60 of Dr Jayant Patel’s patients had died, the Morris Commission was set up to investigate WHY so many people had died. (The official name of the inquiry was The Bundaberg Hospital Commission of Inquiry. The person heading the Inquiry, Mr Tony Morris QC, was compassionate with families of those who died, and with those who suffered alleged injury as a result of Dr Patel’s surgical work. However this was not the case with Bundaberg Hospital administrators Darren Keating and Peter Leck. They undertook a court case against Morris.
- The Morris Inquiry was wound up after Supreme Court Justice Martin Moynihan, on 1st September 2005, found that Mr Morris had been biased against Keating and Leck.
- The Davies Commission subsequently found gross negligence in Patel’s conduct, as well as systematic failures of management to deal with the problem. Davies recommended that Patel be referred to the public prosecutor for consideration of manslaughter, fraud, and assault charges. In total seventeen patient deaths were referred to police. An extradition process was begun after the police issued a warrant for Patel, acting on 14 offenses.
- The report also found that amongst Queensland Health bureaucrats concerns regarding “significant and sustained statewide adverse publicity” were rated as significant as “loss of life”.
- The state chief health officer at the time, Dr Gerry FitzGerald was criticized for his own investigation into Patel, describing it as too positive.
TAKE NOTE: IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM, ANY HINT OF BIAS IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE, NO MATTER HOW SERIOUS THE CHARGES, OR HOW MINOR THE BIAS.
The interim report of the Morris Inquiry was turned into “poisoned fruit” that could not be used. This would later prove most advantageous for Dr Patel, who in 2013, was acquitted of Manslaughter charges after the High Court ordered a re-trial.
Any abuse, verbal or written, by a public servant involved in the welfare review process, is evidence of bias and that is grounds for scrapping the entire review as happened with the Morris Inquiry (at a cost of about $5 MILLION to Queensland taxpayers.
- A few months ago, here in my home state of South Australia, the Supreme Court ordered the re-trial of two members of a motor cycle club who had allegedly shot another person. The judge ordered the re-trial on the grounds of “Procedural Irregularities.”
- Believe me when I say that even minor “Procedural Irregularities” are grounds for having unfavourable administrative appeal decisions scrapped.
- Rude behaviour, abusive language, stonewalling, missing or ‘unprocessed’ documents are all legal grounds for claiming “Procedural Irregularities” and welfare recipients have the legal right to demand a new hearing with a new, IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL that will respect your legal rights.
- If you believe that you are the victim of abusive behaviour, then you can use the Leck vs. Morris; Keating vs. Morris decision to DEMAND that the ARO or Tribune, RECUSE themselves from the processing and handling of your appeal.
- If they refuse, then your legal rights have been violated and you may have grounds for appeal to a higher court.
- If documents that you supplied are missing from the hearing, file a “Procedural Irregularities” complaint and demand a new hearing at a time that is convenient to you.
- If they refuse, then your legal rights have been violated and you may have grounds for appeal to a higher court.
GREY POWER ADVICE FROM AN OLD FOGEY.
When you phone Centrelink, you get a canned voice telling you that the phone call may be recorded for “training and feedback” purposes. Well sometimes, that “feedback” is when it is tendered as evidence in a court by Crown prosecutors!
- Just as Centrelink can record your conversation, you can turn the tables and inform Centrelink that since they are recording the phone call, so are you.
- Be very sweet and polite, but be firm. Expect the “you can’t do that” response but explain that if one party to a phone conversation has permission to record the phone call, it is “implied permission” for both parties to record the call.
- If Centrelink stops recording the call, then you will also stop recording the call.
- You can also record your side of the conversation if you are not using a speaker-phone. This way, you at least have a record of what you said to Centrelink during the call.
- REMEMBER: BE POLITE, BUT BE ASSERTIVE AT ALL TIMES. Never be rude as you compromise your legal rights and that is most unwise.
- What you are doing when you do this is changing the rules of the game by introducing other statute law rules that constraint Centrelink by forcing a more even-handed and fair approach to the dispute resolution process.
YOU CAN CHANGE THE RULES OF THE GAME.
At a tribunal or ARO hearing, if the person you are dealing with gets abusive or is bureaucratically inflexible, YOU can change the rules of the ‘game‘.
As the following extract from Centrelink’s FY 2001-02 Annual Report makes quite clear with the “BALANCED SCORECARD” comment, the treatment of welfare recipients is LITERALLY perceived by Centrelink’s top management as a game! (Oops! How did that revealingly indiscreet comment get into this official report to the parliament? Why did 226 federal politicians ignore it?)
YOU HAVE INALIENABLE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS – SO USE THEM!
The administrative appeals tribunals are QUASI-LEGAL systems that are NOT recognized in the Australian Constitution. Their authority is ‘derived’ from the AUTHORITY of the Governor-General, not the constitution and as such, one use of these tribunals is not to uphold your legal rights but to instead deprive you of your legal rights. keep in mind that the High Court’s May 8th 2013 “statutory fiction” decision, DPP (Cwlth) vs. Keating [HCA 20 -2013], was all about tossing out unconstitutional, human rights violating retrospective legislation that the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, had signed in law in 2011.
T.E.A.M. – Together Everyone Achieves More; a balance of power issue.
Here is one simple way to change the rules of the game and it really is a case of Together Everyone Achieves More. If you can arrive at a hearing with a group of friends who are there in an “AMICUS CURIAE” capacity,i,e, friends of the court, the dynamics of the hearing can be dramatically altered with the “balance of power” moving away from Centrelink towards you.
- If you have a friend with a mobile phone, ask them to record what you say.
- Ask the ARO or tribune if you can record what they say to you. The most likely response is a “NO” that you must respect.
- HOWEVER, when speaking and being recorded by your friend, repeat what was said to you so that it recorded “second-hand”. For example, you could say, “You asked if I have filled in and filed all of the required forms? Yes, I have.”
- NEVER answer a question until you understand what you were asked and also be careful to NEVER over-answer the question, e.g. “Yes, I have” is sufficient to truthfully answer the above “filled and filed” question.
HEARING IMPAIRED (or have a hearing impaired friend.)
Hearing impaired people are legally allowed to use ‘Speech to Text’ aids that translate speech into text on a screen. Hearing impaired, my ANDROID mobile phone has a FREE utility that I downloaded from the Android Play Store. It is called ‘Speech to Text Notepad‘.
- This utility translated speech to text and saves the text in a file that can later be printed out.
- If you are hearing impaired, or have a friend who is hearing impaired, this utility can legally be used as an hearing impairment aid in helping a person to correctly comprehend and understand the conversation whilst, conveniently for you, a text file TRANSCRIPT of the conversation is made.
- It is odds on that a transcript is being made by the tribunal and this is in itself grounds for you making your own copy.
- If the ARO or Tribune objects, the door is wide open to claiming “Procedural Unfairness”, “Bias” AND, “Disability Discrimination”, which is a matter for the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, and you can immediately request a new review hearing with a more impartial ARO or Tribune.
At the end of the day, people can only jerk you around and violate your legal rights if you let them do so. As the “Teacher warned” newspaper below makes quite clear, I am speaking from years of personal experience. In this particular instance, although I was warned, it was the Regional Director who was replaced once the issue hit the newspapers.
I also have my very own personal “CONFIDENTIAL” classification issued by the Senate’s legal & Confidential Affairs Committee in November 2005. Since the Senate was trying to hide some where in the region of about 6,000 post breaching fatalities that had occurred since the Howard Government had come to power in March 1996, citing me for “contempt of Parliament” and jailing is not a wise option for the Federal Parliament, especially now that the full scale of this massive lethal humanitarian disaster is starting to become clearer.
My personal view on this secret confidential classification, which I expressed in writing to the Hanger Royal Commission, is that the above secret gag is a criminal abuse of lawful authority by the Leg-Con Committee for the express purpose of obstructing and perverting the course of justice.
“Soldiers Who Want To Be Heroes number practically zero. But there are millions who want to be civilians”
Those words are from the Rod McKuen anti-war song “Soldiers who want to heroes” (1971?) and they accurately describe me. ‘Jay‘ thought that I was ‘brave’ by doing what I am doing in these postings but nothing could be further from the truth.
- Like ‘Jay’, suffered the emotional and physiological trauma of being dumped on and in 1993, after discovering that the safety tests mentioned in last paragraph of the the “teacher warned” news article had been rigged, I resigned and moved out of teaching for 10 years.
- See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfRDZnt8-MQ for more details.
- In 2004, after receiving a very frightening death threat, I dropped the Quotagate murders issue for over a year!
So, if you want a hero, please look elsewhere.
If you have read previous postings, then you know that I sign off with the statement “A Christian advocate for justice.” That statement is the key to understanding what motivates and sustains me.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A CHRISTIAN TO UNDERSTAND COMMONSENSE.
The Bible has a many commonsense statements that any welfare recipient who has been trampled on will appreciate and understand. Consider this statement from Isaiah 10:2,
“Governments make unjust laws to rob the poor of their rights.”
- Upon discovering that 15,000 welfare recipients had been convicted of law that did not exist, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott joined forced to put through the retro’ legislation that the High Court booted out on May 8th last year.
- Paragraph 51, sub-paragraph xxiiiA requires that the Federal Parliament makes laws for “THE PROVISION” of a welfare allowance but breaching legislation is all about DEPRIVING people of this constitution right.
- WORK FOR THE DOLE – the same paragraph makes it unconstitutional to link dole payments to “civil conscription” activities, e.g. Work for the Dole!
- Work for the dole pays about $6 per hour but the minimum wage is $17.05 per hour plus other award rates, holiday pay, superannuation etc. It is thus legitimized forced under-award payment employment.
- Breaching penalties and forced labour is not only labour-market-exploitation, it also violates supposedly “inalienable human rights” conventions that Australia has been a signatory to for decades, e.g. Aricle 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is supposed to guarantee the right to life and security of person.
As a Christian, my obligation is to “Speak up and defend the poor. See that Justice is done.” (proverbs 31, verses 8 & 9.)
- Even more blunt is the (paraphrased) statement in Micah, chapter 6, verses 4 – 8, in which God tells his people that he cannot be either flattered or bribed and if people want to worship him, they should get off their butts and see that justice is done.
- One of the parables told by Jesus was about a woman who had been denied justice by a corrupt judge. the woman nagged and nagged the judge until, totally exasperated by her nagging, the judge gave her the justice that she was entitled to. The moral of that parable is NEVER EVER GIVE UP and on that note, I leave you with the following cartoon which has deeper significant than first appears.
Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for justice in Australia.