Can millions of Australians who have the dole turned off for alleged “Breach of contract” or have been the victims of unconstitutional tort actions to recover alleged over-payments actually reverse the situation and sue the Federal Government for violation of civil rights and reckless endangerment?
The High Court’s decision, Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar  HCA 17 was handed down by the High Court on May 3rd 2012. Paragraph 143 of this decision states:
“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 court also ruled in paragraph 141 that:
“…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.”
When it comes to civil rights compliance, the credibility of the Australian Federal Parliament and Australian political parties is absolutely lousy:
- The Stolen Generations policies. (1870s – 1970s
- The White Australia policies. (1890s – 1960s)
- The High Court’s Kioa decision [HCA 81] 18 December 1985
- The High Court’s Bhardwaj decision [HCA 11] 14 March 2002
- The High Court’s Poniatowska decision [ HCA 43] 26 October 2011
- The High Court’s Keating decision [HCA 20] 8th May 2013
The Poniatowska and Keating decisions are truly disgraceful blots on Australia’s federal parliament.
- In 2009 an Adelaide women who had pleaded guilty to being overpaid by Centrelink because she had not accurately reported her part-time earnings, appealed when she discovered that the Federal Parliament had unintentionally taken the law requiring reporting off the statute books. In August 2011, fearing that she would win her appeal in the High Court, the Parliament put through retrospective legislation that was intended to validate some 15,000 convictions for a non-existent crime!
- One person affected by the retrospective law was a Victorian woman, Kelly Ann Keating who challenged it in the High Court.
- On May 8th 2013, the High ruled that the retrospective law was “statutory fiction” and dismissed it as being invalid.
- In August 2013, a local court dismissed the charges against Ms Keating.
Another decision on May 8th 2013 was the Beckett decision, [HCA 17], a decision that cleared the way for people wrongfully accused of a crime to sue the government.
The key issue with the Hellicar decision is that the High Court ruled that regulatory authorities had no constitutional authority to rule “on matters of fact” in legal disputes because this was a “a matter for the courts”.
- Centrelink may determine that an over-payment has occurred but Centrelink cannot rule on who was responsible for the cause of the over-payment.
- In the same manner, Centrelink may decide that someone has failed to meet their contractual job search obligations, but Centrelink does not have the right to rule on the “matters of fact” that determine who was responsible for this breach of contract.
- Since Work for the Dole is a form of “civil conscription” that the constitution prohibits from being linked to welfare payments, these contracts are constitutionally invalid and are therefore legally invalid.
- The obvious implication of this is that if the contracts are constitutionally and legally invalid, Centrelink determinations of alleged “breach of contract” and the stopping of welfare payments are also invalid.
In 2002 the Australian High Court ruled in Minister for Immigration & Cultural Affairs v Bhardwaj  209 CLR 597, at paragraph 51, that “A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all“no decision at all”.
This decision was in part based upon another court decision way back in 1947:
Ex parte Hebburn Ltd; Re Kearsley Shire Council (1947) 47 SR (NSW) 416 at 420 where Justice Jordan stated that constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction left “the jurisdiction in law constructively unexercised“.
Over a period of decades, the Federal Parliament has deliberately exceeded its constitutional jurisdiction and authority by imposing Breach of Contract penalties, commonly known as “Breaching” upon millions of impoverished welfare recipients. These penalty provisions, contained in the Social Services Act, have violated the Civil Rights, i.e. the constitutional rights, the legal rights, and the human rights of some 3 – 4 million Australians.
Novemebr 2015: Crystal Iluno v the Minister of Immigration.
This is an active case currently before the Federal Court, Justice Stuart Brown presiding. During a preliminary hearing on Friday 6th November, 2015, Justice Brown made the following statement which I believe is a relevant precedent that supports my viewpoint.
“I’m the lowest rung on the federal judiciary bench of this country, but I am still a judge. It would be my view that, if anything occurs prior to a hearing, it would be deeply contemptuous of the system of this country, which has separation of powers.”
What Justice Brown was referring too was paragraph 75 of the Australian Constitution which states:In all matters–
(iii) In which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party:
Since federation in 1901, any legal decisions that require a determination of the facts of a legal dispute (called a Tort0 are a decision for a court, not bureaucrats.
When it comes to welfare recipients being accused of breach of contract or of making mistakes that lead to over-payments, the FIRST DECISION MAKER, is a court, not a Centrelink employee.
However, since it is financially beneficial to do so, the federal parliament has set up an incredibly complex, unconstitutional and legally invalid appeals system into which welfare recipients are directed. This appeals system effectively ensures that welfare recipients are kept away from the courts where the rule of law applies.
It is my considered opinion that, on the balance of probability, the above court decisions, can be used to sue the federal government and the political parties that created these civil rights violating laws, policies and procedures.
On June 29th 2015, Joe Hockey was awarded $200,000 by the Federal Court in compensation for a “Treasurer for sale” tweet on Twitter, i.e. Hockey v Fairfax [FCA 652].
If Joe Hockey can be awarded that much for that 3-word tweet, what is adequate compensation for welfare recipients who have had their civil rights deliberately violated and their lives placed in peril by being deliberately deprived of what may be their only means of subsisitence?
An even more compelling question is how much compensation is “adequate” compensation where people who were breached did not survive?
Similar to that question is the degree of compensation that should be paid to the families of welfare recipients who did not survive the legally invalid tort actions brought against welfare recipients by the federal government?
On 26th February 2015, the Secretary of the Department of Human Services, Kathryn Campbell, confirmed in a Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearing that she had spent a massive $565,000 in legal fees in an attempt to recover about $5,700 from a welfare recipient.
Ms Campbell admitting to using 3 government lawyers and a lawyer from Clayton Utz, a private law firm to pursue this tort action.
Senator Xenophon took Ms Campbell to task for the problem of information being withheld, a serious federal crime.
Needless to say, Ms Campbell denied any wrong-doing.
However, in an appeal case that is now before the Commonwealth Ombudsman, I have argued that the failure to provide the telephone call centre recording of a conversation between a welfare recipients and a call centre operator, constitutes a violation of article 142 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), a statute which deals with “Abuse of power for the purpose of obtaining a benefit for a 3rd party.
Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead (1912) 15 CLR 333, 342.
Over 100 years ago the Court ruled in Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead (1912) [15 CLR 333, 342] that:
“In civil litigation the Commonwealth has a duty to act as a Model Litigant. The development of this obligation in conducting litigation can be traced to Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead (1912) 15 CLR 333 where Griffith CJ explained it as ‘[t]he old fashioned traditional, and almost instinctive, standard of fair play to be observed by the Crown in dealing with subjects’. In that case the Court criticised that ‘[t]he Crown should not take technical points’.In SCI Operations v The Commonwealth which concerned the failure of a government agency to refund money within a reasonable time, Beaumont, Einfeld and Sackville JJ stated that ‘the position of the Crown itself, especially given its default… should also be taken into account. Otherwise the Crown would be taking, or be seen to be taking, advantage of its own default, whereas it is well established that the Crown must act, and be seen to act, as a model litigant’.
So just how fair is it to withhold evidence and spend hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars in hiring lawyers to recover an alleged over-payment of less than $6,000.
These tactics are known as “stupefy and over-whelm and are exceeding dangerous when used against vulnerable welfare recipients who may be emotionally fragile and potentially suicidal?
Cheryl Kernot’s June 27th 2000 press release indicates that the Howard Government was in violation of the above-mentioned Abuse of Power law. If this is the case, then any fatalities caused by the performance Indicator tagets are homicides in every state and territory in Australia. They are also murders under Article 5 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of Justice.
How many are dead?
Here is a clue: between 1st January 1997 and 31st December 2006 (The Howard Years) there were 23,254 suicides and about 1 in 3 (7,700) were welfare recipients. If only half were caused by the Howard Government’s civil rights violating breaching policies, that would represent a staggering 3,850 post breaching suicides that the Howard Government concealed from the public!
I am not surprised that Centrelink does not collect and report post breaching fatalities. In July 2010, the WA Government paid the family of Ian ward $3,200,000 for his unintended but negligent death in custody. What is a reasonable level of compensation for deaths that are secretly classified as confidential and are dismissed by politicians and lawyers as “irrelevant” and which, although crimes under federal, state and international laws, are deliberately ignored by federal and state police agencies and other government agencies with law enforcement powers?
If you have ever received a letter like the one below, your civil rights have been violated and you have been ripped off.
Do not get sucked into the appeals system – tell Centrelink that the High Court’s ASIC v Hellicar Decision in 2012 means that “It is a matter for the courts” and you have the right to have all relevant “evidence” concerning the matter provided to you INCLUDING THE PHONE CALL RECORDING. If Centrelink claims not to have the recording, that is the crucial clue that you are being defrauded and you should file a fraud complaint with your local police station under s. 142 of the commonwealth Crimes Act (1995).
REFER THE POLICE TO THIS WEBSITE AND I AM SURE THAT I SHALL HEAR FROM THEM IN DUE TIME (unless a cove-up is set up to protect those responsible for this fraud.)
NETWORK WITH OTHERS AND FIND OUT HOW MANY OTHERS WHO HAVE BEEN HIT WITH THIS FRAUD ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MISSING PHONE CALLS.
YOU HAVE 12 SENATORS IN YOUR STATE AND I FEDERAL MP. CONTACT EVERY ONE OF THEM AND FILE AN S 142 COMPLAINT ALONG WITH THE TEXT FROM THIS WEBSITE.
Ultimately, by networking and sharing details, every case of the ‘No phone call recording available” becomes in law what is known as a “A matter of fact”, i.e. the serial withholding of evidence to win court cases in mock “kangaroo court” trials that can, in some instances, perhaps be best compared to the infamous Communist Russian “show trials” of the 1950s.
Stay tuned for more details in my next web journal posting.
Ronald Medlicott – A Christian lay advocate for true justice in Australia.