Part 9: Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity. The day the High Court ruled against in-house legal decisions by ‘regulatory authorities’, e.g. Centrelink.

One of the powerhouse forces driving Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity is the illegal ‘legal decisions’ routinely made by Centrelink. These decisions come in 2 basic categories:

  1. Breaching – the ‘legal’ determination by that welfare recipients have “breached” their Mutual Obligations contract.
  2. Over-payment tort actions – the arbitrary decision that is a person has been overpaid by Centrelink, that Centrelink was not at fault and therefore welfare recipients should repay the money even when the “6 Week Rule” applied to those alleged over-payments.

[Note: the shortlink URL for this webpage is:       ]

If you have ever been in one of the above categories, or are in that situation right now, then right now you really do need to know about THE HELLICAR DECISION:

On May 3rd 2012, the Australian High Court handed down its decision in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17

Like all High Court decisions, it is many pages long and incredibly complex, confusing and totally boring to everyone except the people involved in the case. However, the key paragraphs for welfare recipients are paragraphs 141 and 143.

Paragraph 141 is very important to people who have been hit with the Waivergate Scam, i.e. Centrelink withholding “need to know and entitled to know” information that would undermine Centrelink’s effort to recover alleged over-payments that may have been due to “Commonwealth error”. When these errors occur, Centrelink has no legal right to even attempt to reclaim the over-payments due to the “Waiver of debt due to Commonwealth error” law in paragraph 1,237A of the Social Security Act.

Hellicar – Paragraph 141

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.”

 With the primary facts in many Centrelink/DHS/DSS tort actions being the content of the phone calls recorded when welfare recipients reported earnings to Centrelink on the 13 32 76 hotline, the withholding of this evidence means that no determination by any authority, be it a Centrelink official, e.g. an Authorized review Officer, the social Security appeals Tribunal or the federal Administrative Appeals tribunal, is legally valid. In point of fact, any such decisions made by these ‘decision-makers’ that is made in the knowledge that the phone call evidence is being withheld involves one or more violations of the commonwealth criminal Code Act that deal with abuse of power and obstruction of justice that further invalidates judgements against welfare recipients.

  • ‘Abuse of Power’ – s142 (1)(b)(i) & (ii) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.

 “A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if (b) the official does so with the intention of:

(i) dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or: (ii) dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years

 When Centrelink staff run the Waiver-gate Scam, they commit a serious crime but it gets even worse if a the victim has a fatal heart attack or stroke or is so traumatized that they commit suicide. then the death is a homicide, as per the 9/11 jumpers who leapt from the burning skyscraper rather than be slow roasted alive. (These deaths are proxy murders or felony murders or, at the very least, manslaughter due to criminal negligence.)

OKAY, if you have ever been breached or hit with the Waivergate Scam but are reading this report, then you are “A SURVIVOR” [Sounds a bit better and much less demeaning than ‘victim‘.]

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.”

 I have printed the last sentence in red because this is literally a-red-letter-statement that is of crucial importance to every person who has ever been “breached” by the DSS or by Centrelink. It is of equal importance for every person who has ever been the respondent in a tort action, i.e. litigation, by the DSS or Centrelink to recover alleged over-payments.

 The determination of the facts is, to quote both the High Court and Senator Penny Wong,[1] “a matter for the courts”.

  1. The legal implication is that in some 3 – 4 million CES/DSS/Centrelink determinations of alleged “Breach of Contract” by welfare recipients, the public servants who worked for these “regulatory agencies” [that has a clearly evident financial vested interest in the determinations made], had no legal authority to make those decisions.
  2. This High Court decision also applies to every tort action by Centrelink in which Centrelink staff, in violation of vested interest principles, made determinations as to who was legal liable for alleged over-payments to welfare recipients.
  3. Anyone breached or hit with an over-payment claim by Centrelink that was not resolved by a court should be talking to a lawyer.
  4. On a case by case basis that is too expensive under normal circumstances. However, Maurice Blackburn is a top class action law firm and they have a ‘no win – no fee’ offer that is advertised on TV.
  5. Sending them an email via their on-line web links costs nothing if you ask them if a class action is possible for survivors of breaching or Waivergate.
  6. Be sure to quote [141] & [143] of ASIC v Hellicar (2012) HCA reference and paragraphs 141 & 143 and paragraph 53 of the Bhardwaj decision below. {you do not need to state the text, just the legal reference}
  7. NOTE: Due to possible conflict of interest problems, Dun & Bradstreet and Clayton Utz are two law firms that I recommend that you do not contact. {The DHS and the DSS have used these law firms in legal actions against welfare recipients.}

Paragraph [53] of the Australian High Court’s Bhardwaj Decision ( Minister for Immigration & Cultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] 209 CLR 597) contains the following statement:

 “In our view, logic and legal principle both direct the conclusion that the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada is correct. As already pointed out, a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all. Once that is accepted, it follows that, if the duty of the decision-maker is to make a decision with respect to a person’s rights but, because of jurisdictional error, he or she proceeds to make what is, in law, no decision at all, then, in law, the duty to make a decision remains unperformed.”



Last night on TV the proposed 15% GST was a hot news topic. When ‘a government expert’ was asked what would be the impact on unemployed and what compensation these people received, the expert estimated a $5 BILLION a year hit and as for compensation, “Nothing, they’ll just have to wear it.”

So much for caring for Australia’s most vulnerable Aussie Battlers!

Just remember the “Just have to wear it” comment if you are voting in next year’s election. In the meantime, email your feral MP and the 12 senators who represent your state {2 in each of the territotories} and very politely express your person opinion of the “Just have to wear it” mindset.


Sounds heavy and important doesn’t it? The Emcott Report is a 110,000 word summary over the 140 or so Ronald’s space postings that now amount to about 1 million words. If you have been sucked into the SSAT/AAT  get-the-money-back-meat grinder, then you need the Emcott Report if you plan to appeal to the Ombudsman. If you have not, you should, even if you do not plan to sue the federal government for abuse of power, etcetera.

To obtain a copy of this report send me an email at the following link:

Make the subject line EMCOTT REPORT.

I shall be checking my email every few days (10GB Optus seniors plan limits time spent surfing on the Internet) and will forward a PDF copy as soon as I can. (About 6MB in size so it does not take long to check up my monthly allowance.)

Ron Medlicott – A Christian advocate for justice in Australia.

[1] ABC Radio 891 at approximately 8.15 a.m CST. on Friday 11th May 2012. See Case Study #13 in this report.

This entry was posted in News and politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 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