“Irrelevant”. Once more that ugly way of describing Australia’s secretly classified welfare penalties death toll has surfaced in official correspondence.
I have not made a posting on this website during the last six months because I have been assisting someone rebut a fraudulent claim by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. Dial 13 32 76 and you will hear the following recorded statements:
“Good morning. Welcome to the Department of Human Services. This is Centrelink’s reporting line. For your security, this call will be recorded. Please tell me your customer access number, if you have one. You may know this as your Customer Reference Number.”
[Note: The short link to this URL is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-lZ ]
Having overpaid a welfare recipient, Centrelink automatically blamed that welfare recipient, hereafter referred to as “WR-X”, as in Welfare Recipient X, for these (alleged) over-payments. The only hard evidence as to who was responsible for the mistake that resulted in the alleged over-payments to WR-X was in the recording of the phone call recorded by Centrelink.
It is not known if Centrelink bureaucrats listened to this recording before blaming WR-X; what is known is that after 15 months, an ARO review, an SSAT Hearing, and an AAT trial, Centrelink, and the Department of Human Services still will not make the recording available!
Since the recording was the only evidence as to who said what to whom, on behalf of WR-X, I requested that the recording be made available. However, the Crown Law lawyer acting on behalf of the Secretary for the Department of Social Services, i.e. the person with bureaucratic responsibility for Centrelink’s operations, could not, or would not, make this crucial recording available.
So much for “ For your security, this call will be recorded.”
Via email, I then put a series of questions to this lawyer asking how many times the Secretary had engaged in “Tortuous Conduct“, i.e. legal action to recover any over-payments that may have been made to welfare recipients, and how many times had this resulted in fatalities, the answer that I received was that my questions were “irrelevant”.
So lets have a close look at these “irrelevant” fatalities from a statute law perspective and then from a human rights perspective.
1. Withholding evidence for financial advantage.
Withholding evidence during a federal trial is a major crime that violates a heap of laws, especially Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995). This law deals with ‘Acts of Omission or acts of commission by a legal entity for the purpose of obtaining a financial advantage that is not entitled to be received.’
- It is worth noting that this law is often used to prosecute welfare recipients for allegedly ripping off Centrelink.
- It is also worthy of note that paragraph 5 of the constitution clearly states that the law is binding on the people, i.e. the Secretary is as accountable for violating this law as even the most impoverished welfare recipient.
2. FELONY MURDER.
Section 294 (4) of the Western Australian Crimes Act deals with “stupefying and overwhelming things’ that can cause a death. Such fatalities are felony murders in that5 that state and in all states except, the Northern territory, the ACT, and perhaps not surprisingly the Commonwealth’s previous mentioned Criminal Code Act.
- Crimes that so “stupefy and overwhelm” people are homicidal violations of these laws:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 18 (1)(a);
- Criminal Code (Qld) s 302 (1) (b)–(d);
- Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA)
- s 12A; Criminal Code (Tas) s 157 (1) (c);
- Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); s 3A
The downside of repeatedly dismissing these fatalities is that they may now qualify for ‘up-grading’ to Wilful Murder, a point highlighted in numerous appeals by people who sought to have Wilful Murder charges downgraded to a lesser crime so that they would one day be eligible for parole.
The Boughey High Court Appeal:
- The High Court considered the meaning of the phrase ‘likely to cause death’ in s 157(1) of the Tasmanian Criminal Code. Section 157(1) (b) provides that culpable homicide is murder if it is committed with an intention to cause ‘bodily harm which the offender knew to be likely to cause death in the circumstances, although he had no wish to cause death’.
- The majority of the High Court held that the phrase ‘likely to cause death’ does not mean ‘more likely than not’ and the phrase should not be explained in terms of a particular ‘degree of mathematical probability’. Instead, the phrase should be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning: ‘a substantial or real chance as distinct from what is a mere possibility’.
It should be noted that legislated welfare penalties, e.g. Breaching and Serious Compliance Failure Penalties are about deliberately depriving very vulnerable at-risk people, many with serious mental health problems, of the ability to survive. in the 10=year period 1997-2006, some 20,914 people committed suicide and a staggering 1 in 3 were unemployed people.
- How many of the these suicides were a direct response to the “stupefying and overwhelming” effect of having their only means of subsistence cut-off is currently unknown.
- However, by deliberately ignoring the fatal consequences, i.e. not reporting these fatalities but instead secretly classifying them as “confidential” and “irrelevant”, Australia’s federal politicians may have unwittingly exposed themselves to serious criminal charges under Australian laws.
- WHY? Because legislated welfare penalties (by any name) created “‘a substantial or real chance as distinct from what is a mere possibility that this “stupefying and overwhelming” penalty system was likely to cause death’’.
- By secretly classifying these fatalities as “confidential” and dismissing them as “irrelevant”, the clear MINDSET of federal politician and bureaucrats responsible for these deaths is easily determined, i.e. as far as they were/are concerned, these homicides are an acceptable consequence.
- That mindset makes these homicides Wilful Murders rather than ‘just’ Manslaughter due to Criminal Negligence, or Felony Murders.
AUSTRALIA’S “IRRELEVANT” CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.”
Australia is a signatory to 7 international conventions that impose legally enforceable obligations upon the federal government of the day, i.e. the Abbott Government. The enforcement comes from Section 7 (1) (k) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court convention, i.e.
” Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”
The International Convention for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides the following rights:
- Article 1 – the negative right not to be deprived of the only means of subsistence;
- Article 6 – no forced labour, i.e. no Work for the Dole in order to receive a welfare subsistence allowance. (Work for the Dole is also prohibited under Section 51 (xxiii) (a) of the Australian Constitution.)
- Article 9 – The right to social security. (This right to social security is also prescribed under Section 51 (xxiii) (a) of the Australian Constitution, i.e. the Federal Parliament has a constitutional obligation to provide a welfare allowance to people who need this payment in order to subsist.)
For decades the Australian federal parliament has been a serial violator of these rights. Check out these links for further details of the willingness of politicians to violate the human rights of vulnerable Australian citizens:
Over the last 30 years, I estimate that serial suicides that have been triggered by the “stupefying and overwhelming” consequence of cutting the only means of subsistence to impoverished, emotional distressed welfare recipients, may have resulted in some 15,000 suicides.
- To this number of deaths can be added the tally of “Deaths by Misadventure” that happened to people who were forced out of safe accommodation onto the streets.
- In addition, there are also the so-called “Natural Causes” fatalities. Let’s face it, if you deprive a person with acute asthma of the financial resources needed to by asthma puffers and they have a massive asthma attack and die, is that really natural causes or is yet another examples of a fatal “stupefying and overwhelming thing”?
Australian politicians have not yet learned that the Social Media is the real mass media. Why? Because, when news breaks, like the mass media, you’ll hear it break first in the social media.
Eventually a welfare recipient, perhaps WR-X, is going to get these deaths before a court and then the fat will be in the fire.WR-X does have a shot at arguing her case in the Federal Court but that could be a year or more from now and a lot of vulnerable people could die in that time!
If you have a Twitter or Facebook account, or if you know how to send an SMS, you can help to prevent further Breachgate and Waivergate frauds and fatalities by proving that Australia’s Crimes againstHhumanity are not “irrelevant”.
By letting as many of your friends as possible know about these fatalities.
Ronald Medlicott – A Christian (lay) advocate for justice in Australia.
P.S. – If you get a phone cal or a letter of demand from Centrelink, remember these two crucial points:
- You have the right to remain silent, and;
- The onus is on Centrelink to prove their claim. You can torpedo it by demanding that ALL recordings of your phone conversations be made available to you so that you can discuss them with a legal aid lawyer or a welfare rights advocate.
BE WARNED: Answer no questions as saying “Yes” to the seemingly innocent question “Did you receive the letters that we sent you” will be deemed by a Centrelink ARO, the SSAT and the AAT to be an “error” on your part and thus you get stuck with repaying money that was over-paid due to “Commonwealth error”, i.e. an error by Centrelink!
Hence the need to say nothing other than “I know my rights. I don’t have to say anythingother than give me copies of the phone calls.