Part One: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity.

“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:   ]

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.’

  1. It is worth noting that this law is often used to prosecute welfare recipients for allegedly ripping off Centrelink.
  2. 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.


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.

  1. Crimes that so “stupefy and overwhelm” people are homicidal violations of these laws:
  2. Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 18 (1)(a);
  3. Criminal Code (Qld) s 302 (1) (b)–(d);
  4. Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA)
  5. s 12A; Criminal Code (Tas) s 157 (1) (c);
  6. 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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’’.
  4. 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.
  5. That mindset makes these homicides Wilful Murders rather than ‘just’ Manslaughter due to Criminal Negligence, or Felony Murders.


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:

  1. You have the right to remain silent, and;
  2. 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.


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

6 Responses to Part One: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity.

  1. Annon says:

    Hi Ron
    Firstly Thanks for the link its a exactly what we need !
    this website has given me a great insight as we are about to face the tribunal soon on a matter of 5 years of overpayment for FBT resulting in a 20k debt !
    if there is any other ref material i can get my hands on would be a great benefit to our family’s case .

    any help greatly appreciated

    • yadnarie48 says:

      Sorry for the delay, I’m clearing over 400 emails from my inbox and it is a huge task!

      Dial 13 32 76 and listen for 10 seconds: you can hang up when you hear the statement “This call will be recorded for your security.”

      At the AAT hearing, YOU have to make the opening statement and you should quote that comment and point out that after the Crown lawyer has had their say, you will make that phone call so that it can be officially included in the trial transcript.

      (YES – it really is a trial.)

      If the root cause of contention is a phone call to a call centre, i.e. who said what, you should point out that Centrelink’s recording of the conversation is the only FACTUAL CERTAINTY as to who said what. The withholding of that phone call from you BEFORE any decision was made was a PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS VIOLATION and the following HIGH COURT decisions contain BINDING PRECEDENTS that apply to your case:

      Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81; (1985) 159 CLR 550 (18 December 1985)

      Coco v R [1994] HCA 15; (1994) 179 CLR 427; (1994) 120 ALR 415; (1994) Aust Torts Reports 81-270; (1994) 68 ALJR 401; (1994) 72 A Crim R 32 (13 April 1994)

      The withholding of evidence in a Federal Trial is a violation of Section 135.2 of the Criminal Code (1995) for the Secretary of the Department of Social Services is, by acts of omission and commission trying to obtain a financial advantage that is not entitled to be received. The question of how many times that the Secretary has engaged in this unlawful activity is relevant and significant to your case for it striles at the heart of the credibility and integrity of the Secretary who, if the Human Services Minister Scott Morrison is to be believed, is trying each year to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in “Commonwealth errors. See for details which you can print out and table in the tribunal as part of your evidence file.

      Under the AAT Act, the tribunal has the power to order the Secretary to either produce the recording or to admit that it never existed and that there was never any factual certainty as to who was responsible for the original error.

      Such an admission is a no-win for the Secretary because the Coco Decision requires openness and transparency in tort actions whilst Kioa means that by withholding information, the Secretary has committed a procedural fairness violation.

      The violation of Section 135.2 of the criminal Code means that you are the victim of crime and as such, you are reasonably entitled to know, and it is in the PUBLIC INTEREST to know:

      (a) How many people have been the victim of this crime in the last 15 years;
      (b) How many people have died because these deaths of RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE MURDERS under laws that apply in most states!

      My email address is (slow reply) and my mobile for SMS contact is 0438626811.(fast reply by SMS)

      Given my experience in a case last year that is now headed for the Federal Court on appeal, I may be able to help you.

      Ron Medlicott

  2. Marko Spehar says:

    Said to see how much corruption there is.Centerlink have bein harassing me from the day I received DSP.Police do noting saying it is nobody.Funny that when it happens around family and friends.Corruption is in every department of gov.I have seen it with my own eyes and can prove it.

    • yadnarie48 says:

      Police need to look at s 142 of the Commonwealth criminal Code Act (1995) and Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court PLUS relevant state crime laws that deal with deaths that are the result of the commission of a crime.
      Google and download your own state’s Crimes Act and do your own reading to find these laws, e.g. QLD s 302 (4), WA s 294 (4) SA s 13 (7), NSW s 18 (1) and VIc s 4 (from memory).

      Many police see their role as protecting the status quo of the establishment ans shy away from investigating politicians or senior public servants who may have abused their lawful authority and so you have to be specific and demand such things as a complaint file number which forces the police to put the complaint on the record. If they then do nothing or come up with a crappy excuse, you can escalate the issue to a formal complaint to the police complaints authority, state ICAC, or stae ombudsman, et cetera. If enough welfare recipients do this, change will occur, if for no other reason than the politicians and bureaucrats have a very high sense of self-preservation!

  3. Nick C says:

    Who is appealing the case in the Federal Court?

    • yadnarie48 says:

      Hi Nick,

      Welcome to the Genocide/Crimes against Humanity Victims Club. You are ‘just’ one of millions of people over the last 40 years to have your civil rights (Constitutional, legal and Human Rights) violated by the Federal parliament.

      TAKE NOTE: (1) On October 31st I lodged a complain with the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [OHCHR]- the email link is and the good news is that you can also complain to the OHCHR. If you do, link your complaint to mine with the opening statement “Re the genocide complaint lodged by Mr. Ronald Medlicott on 31st October 2016.”

      NOTE #2 – The legal briefing paper issued by the Attorney-General’s department is the Bhardwaj Decision that I write about in my posting. the guts of this legal briefing is found in paragraph 53 of the High Court’s findings: In 2002 the Australian High Court ruled in Minister for Immigration & Cultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] 209 CLR 597, that “if there is no jurisdiction for a determination” (or a decision), then there is “no decision at all”.

      What you will not find is a legal briefing for Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17 93rd May 2012):

      At paragraph 141 in the High Court’s decision the judges ruled “…that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred.”

      In paragraph 143 of this case the High Court ruled that

      “The proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory authority relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require that regulatory agency to make some final judgement about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. Deciding the facts of a case is a court’s task, not a task for a regulatory authority.”

      The key bit is the last line, i.e. “Deciding the facts of a case is a court’s task, not a task for a regulatory authority.” In any dealings with Centrelink, THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE. If Centrelink wants to hit you with a penalty, a court firstly must make a determination of the primary facts upon which an administrative decision can be based. NO COURT DECISION = NO JURISDICTION = NO LEGAL DECISION.

      If you are prepared to risk being bored to death by the legal stuff that I have been posting on YouTube, check out (and download) ALL of these videos – watch the last ones first. You can submit these videos as “facts not in evidence” in a new appeal pointing out that under Hellicar and Bhardwaj, NO DECISION in your case is legally valid until a court decides what the primary facts are:

      Centrelink Prosecutions: Bunging a spanner in the works.

      Are Centrelink penalties unconstitutional?

      Centrelink and the 6 week Rule.

      Murder by Legislation: The Canberra Killers Club.

      Centrelink’s Secret Breaching Triggered death Toll.

      Billabong Ghosts (How almost 4 million Aussie Battlers were thrown in the Billabong.)

      The Culleton factor

      Genocide in Australia: Evidence for the ICC to consider

      Genocide – The Slaughtergate Law

      Assembling Ikea furniture in the dark – Christian Porter

      Email me at with the subject line GENOCIDE and I will send you documents that you can also submit in an appeal – keep in mind Bhardwaj and Hellicar and that if there is no court decision, any Centrelink decisions are not legally valid.


      Ron Medlicott

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