Part4: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity” – How to survive Centrelink’s “Waivergate” fraud.

To avoid becoming yet another victim of Centrelink’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity “Waivergate” fraud, you need to know how this swindle works, and how to fight back.

“Waivergate” is a whole swag bag of dirty tricks such as the genuine example letter below, or the withholding of crucial evidence that would undermine Centrelink’s efforts to recover money that was due to a “Commonwealth error” and which, after 6-weeks had expired, Centrelink was/is legally required to “waive”, i.e. not recover from those overpaid by mistake.

The best in the nutshell advice that I can give is to exercise your right to say nothing, i.e. your right to be silent when questioned by Centrelink, and then fight back, HARD!

AAA Web CarolynFar too many politicians, including Scott Morrison, the current Minister for Social Services, considers people who are overpaid to be “rorters”. This no surprise as Liberal politicians have a track record of regarding welfare recipients are “dole bludgers” and “rorters”. The fact that 56% of the Federal Parliament was caught out in the “Perksgate” rort of $4.64 Million in 2009 is “irrelevant”, at least to them!


(Windows users can right-click on the mouse and select the “Save Page As…” option.)


  1. It may come in the form of a phone call “inviting” you to have a meeting with Centrelink to “discuss” over-payments that you have received, or
  2. It may be in the form of an “Account payable” letter such as the redacted example above – this letter is real but all information that may identify the person it was sent too had been deleted for privacy reasons.

STEP 2: Know what a “Tort” or “Tortious Conduct” is.

  1. A “Tort” or “Tortious Conduct” is another way of saying that someone, i.e. Centrelink, is taking legal steps to recover an alleged  debt or be compensated because you did something wrong.
  2. Do not kid yourself; whether you opt for using Centrelink’s “administrative review processes”, or force Centrelink to sue you in a court of law, you are involved in a complex legal action in which YOU HAVE RIGHTS that Centrelink may violate in order to recover over-payments that they may have no legitimate right to reclaim.
  3. Since Centrelink is taking legal action against you, I strongly recommend that you force Centrelink to take you to court.
  4. In the following steps I shall explain why I think that this is the best option.


You have VERY POWERFUL LEGAL RIGHTS that can limit what steps Centrelink can do in trying to get back over-payments and knowing those rights could save you a lot of grief and pain.

  2. This is perhaps the most important right to remember because just saying “Yes” to the question “Did you receive our letters?” could kill off any chance of not having to repay Centrelink even though it was their fault and not yours that you were over-paid. SO SAY NOTHING IF CENTRELINK PHONES YOU AND ASKS QUESTIONS.
  3. if Centrelink phones you with an invitation to have a meeting to discuss the alleged over-payments – SAY: “I have the right to remain silent and I expect Centrelink to respect that right. If you do not do so, you will automatically invalidate any legal claim to repayment that you are seeking from me.”
  4. SAY: “I intend to seek legal advice from a legal aid lawyer or a welfare rights advocate and will not answer questions without first receiving such advice. No questions put by Centrelink will be answered until I have received advice on the best way to respond to these questions.”
  5. If Centrelink threats to prosecute you, show no fear. INSTEAD SAY: “That means I will automatically be entitled to legal aid and that will make it much easier to expose this fraud in court.”


  1. Request all relevant documentation that covers the period in question, including copies of any documents that you gave to Centrelink, and;
  2. Request MP3 copies of ALL OF THE RECORDINGS that Centrelink recorded during the period when you reported income via the telephone. (Check 13 32 76 for the statement “For your security, this call will be recorded.”
  3. Under the “Rules of Evidence” in a court,and under the federal Evidence Act (1995)  evidence cannot be hidden from you. However, in the Administrative Review Officer ‘interviews, the Social Security Administration Appeals Tribunal hearings, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal trials, it will be hidden from you and you then have no hope of winning!

STEP 5: If Centrelink fails to provide the information requested, go to police station and file a fraud complaint pointing out that the withholding of evience for the purpose of obtaining a financial advantage that is not entitled to be received is FRAUD.

  1. Request that the police provide a complaint number.
  2. If the police decline to do so, politely INSIST that you be given a complaint number and point out that if the police continue to refuse to so, when the tort goes to court, you will  inform the court of the this refusal.
  3. Phone Centrelink and inform them that you have filed a police complaint and tell them the complaint number.


  1. If Centrelink wants to sue you, it is very expensive – so expensive that the cheapest option may be to do what the law requires under Sector 1,237A of the Social Security Act, i.e waive the debt due to “Commonwealth error”.
  2. In Court, Centrelink HAS TO TO PROVE THAT YOU MADE THE MISTAKE that caused the ‘ALLEGED’ over-payments.
  3. YOU, do not not have prove that you are innocent because you are entitled to the presumption of innocence, i.e. the belief that you did no wrong.
  4. You or your lawyer, or lay advocate, get to ask the questions and Centrelink has to answer them.
  5. So you ask the questions that Centrelink does not want to answer.

STEP 7: If you have not yet read the  last posting THEN STOP AND DO IT NOW.

STEP 8: Read what is written below very carefully: AAA Royal CommissionBoth welfare penalties legislation (Breachgate) and fraudulent torts against welfare recipients, i.e. YOU, can expose life to peril. The death toll is secretly classified as “confidential” and “irrelevant” by the Federal Parliament and is also UNREPORTED BY CENTRELINK, just like the Department of Environment never reported the 4 Home Improvement Program fatalities (Roofgate)! Check out the documents embedded in for details. [To print them just click on them and they will pop up in a new screen page and you can use your browser’s PRINT command.]

These deaths are a major weakness that Centrelink does not want to have to reveal in court. So, make sure that Centrelink knows that you will be asking these questions, and many more, in court.

  • STATE THE FOLLOWING: “Over a period measured in decades, on behalf the Federal Parliament, the Secretary for the Department of Social Security has committed millions of violations of constitutional rights, millions of violations of legal rights and millions of violations of human rights.
  • The upside financial benefit to the federal treasury is measured in billion of dollars, possibly 10s of billions of dollars.
  • The downside cost to welfare recipients of this ‘stupefying and overwhelming’ abuse of power has been an appalling humanitarian disaster.
  • Hardship, suffering, homelessness, and worst of all, unnumbered thousands of deaths that are both secretly classified as ‘confidential’ and dismissed as ‘irrelevant’ by the Australian Federal Parliament.
  • Because of this secrecy,the precise number of  fatalities is unknown. However, statistical data on suicides indicated that about 1 in 3 of the 20,914 suicides that occurred in the 10-year period 1997 to 2006 was an unemployed person.
  • How many were the victims of legislated penalties is an issue that needs to be determined in order that the credibility of the Secretary can be assessed before this tort action proceeds further.
  • The Court needs to be advised that the unreported “irrelevant” fatalities not only violate state and territory homicide las laws such as Section 279 (4) of the WA Crimes Act and Section 18 (1) of the NSW Crimes Act; they are also violations of Article 7 (1) (k) of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court.
  • To say that these deaths are major crimes is an understatement, and, consistent with Kioa versus West, High Court of Australia, case 81 in 1985, it is imperative that all relevant and significant information in regard to fatal torts by the Secretary be made clear to the Court for consideration.
  • This need for clarity and transparency was also made clear by the High Court in 1994 in Coco versus the Queen, case number 15. In paragraph 8 the Court stated thatStatutory authority to engage in what otherwise would be tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and
    unambiguous language.
  • Therefore, in order to ensure clarity and transparency, with all relevant and significant evidence in regard to the perhaps extremely questionable and dubious  tortious conduct of the Secretary over the last 3 or 4 decades, the answers to the following questions are sought so that the Court, and the public, may make an informed judgement about the merits of the Secretary’s current claim.”
  1. How much has been over-paid by Centrelink since it was set up in 1997 is a crucial question? The answer is over $3 BILLION
  2. How many times has Centrelink engaged in tortious conduct known as “Breaching”? (Thousands of times.)
  3. Centrelink’s computer system is so flaky that even the Abbott Government  ministers who rely on this system admit that it is does not have the required “INTEGRITY” to do the job! (See the last post about the “Walkman era”, “turbo Commodore 64” comments.
  4. Print out and read this article which is based upon Senate Hansard reports from 27 February 2015. Ask just how reliable is such shonky and out-moded computer?
  5. Ask, “Just how often does this computer prevent reporting income and how often in court has Centrelink prosecuted people for allegedly not reporting income”?
  6. If you ever get a “not required to report” message from Centrelink’s computer, SAVE IT TO YOUR DESKTOP and print it out as well and then file the printout with your Centrelink stuff.
  7. Make a diary record or computer file if you get kicked of the phone with a “Not required to report” message.
  8. ASK: “Is Breaching, now called Serious Compliance Failure either constitutional in accordance with Section 51, sub-paragraph 23A of the Constitution or consistent with human rights under Articles 2 or 9 of the International Convention of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights?”
  9. ASK: How many times has tortious conduct of any kind been terminated because of the death of a welfare recipient?
  10. ASK “Why were these deaths considered ‘irrelevant’ by a Crown Law Lawyer who represented Centrelink in a case heard before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal?” (Contact me for details on this if your case is going to court.)
  11. ASK: “Why does Centrelink engage in tortious conduct and withhold evidence such as phone call recordings in cases before the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal?
  12. ASK: “Is the withholding of evidence for financial gain a crime that violates both court procedures and the Commonwealth Crimes Act?”
  13. ASK: “Is Centrelink aware that in 1843 an English Royal Commission reported to the Parliament that “…in the absence of a special definite rule of law which defines what is meant by implied malice, consist simply in the disregard of life manifested by exposing life to peril, although no malice in the popular sense of the term exist against any individual.” The Royal Commission’s more concise conclusion was that, “It is the wilful exposure of life to peril that constitutes the crime.”

OKAY, by now you should have some idea of how to put pressure on Centrelink to back off and waive any claim against you.

DO check this entire website from at least onwards and make sure that you copy, print and save the documents that I have posted on the Ronald’s space website.

DO NOT be frightened if Centrelink staff threaten to prosecute you for fraud.

As I said earlier, that means you are eligible for legal aid and if that happens, steer the lawyer to this website and insist that your lawyer contact me by post. The documents posted on Ronald’s space contain my current address, as of 3rd May 2015, and since I have lived here for over 20 years, I do not expect this address to change. If it does, I will post the new address anyway.

LIVE IN ADELAIDE AND HAVE AN SSAT hearing or an AAT “trial” coming up real soon?

Consider contacting me via SMS on 04 386 26811 for ideas/suggestions.

DO NOT contact me by email – my ‘Inbox’ over-flows and some emails can get dumped or diverted to my Junk mail box where they are automatically deleted.


“Lawyers have a special duty to raise their voices and act as they can whenever they believe that the fundamentals of the constitution are endangered by extreme laws or by governmental actions out of harmony with our liberty respecting traditions.”

Justice Michael  Kirby ABC AM program,                                                                       Thursday, 24 November 2005     (8:16 AM South Australian time.)


I hope that readers have found this information useful.

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for real justice in Australia.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

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