“Waivergate” is my name for Centrelink ripping off vulnerable, ill-informed welfare recipients who do not know their rights and are therefore “fair game.” As the news article “Top cops hunt welfare cheaters” reveals, Centrelink and federal police have 1.1 million people in their sights because they have been overpaid almost $5 BILLION.
- To believe that all of those people were in the wrong and that Centrelink with its poorly trained, overworked staff and a clapped out 30-year old computer system never made a single mistake is bunkum.
- Most of the over-payments were caused by Centrelink errors and do not have to be repaid.
- However, the top bureaucrats who run Centrelink are not keen to own up to the problems within their system. It is a case of no-one wants to own up to problems that have resulted in over-paying Australia’s poorest people an extra $5 BILLION?
- The solution to the over-payments problem? Dead simple, just tell everyone that all of these welfare recipients ripped you off, (this is called Deflection, also known as blame-the-victim), and then rip-off the welfare recipients to get it back by violating their civil rights, e.g. the presumption of innocence!
- Is that legal? No way; but they have been getting away with this for years simply because, unlike 8-year kids in the USA, as a school teacher I am ashamed to admit that most people in Australia DO NOT KNOW THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS because we do not teach these rights as they do in the USA.
[NOTE: The URL for this web page is http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-qW ]
In order to get that $5 Billion back, Centrelink arbitrarily decides that it is the fault of all of these “rorter” and then demands the money back. However, a couple of High Court decisions have the potential to ‘bung a spanner in the works’ for people who read this posting and thus know their civil rights. These 2 crucial High Court decisions are:
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar  HCA17 which was handed down on May 3rd 2012. 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.”
Minister for Immigration & Cultural Affairs v Bhardwaj  209 CLR 597, where the High Court ruled:
“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.”
BHARDWAJ: (Check out paragraph 53 above) Download from here:
Centrelink personnel may find that you have been overpaid but it is for a
WHAT DO THESE DECISIONS MEAN? Basically, they mean good news for welfare recipients and bad news for the government.
HELLICAR DECISION: (Check out paragraphs 141 and 143) Download from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/11.html
It is for a court, not Centrelink, to work out WHY you were overpaid. Despite what legislation the Federal parliament may have set in place, Centrelink staff have no constitutional jurisdiction to decide that you, very conveniently, are at fault.
Since Centrelink have no jurisdiction to decide the facts of matter that apply in an individual’s case, e.g. YOU, there can be no decision. If you get an “Account payable” letter without a court having decided the facts of the matter, you are being defrauded and should file a police complaint citing these 2 laws:
‘Abuse of Power’ – s142 (1)(b)(i) & (ii) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995).
“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)
Division 149—Obstruction of Commonwealth public officials
149.1 Obstruction of Commonwealth public officials
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person knows that another person is a public official; and
(b) the first‑mentioned person obstructs, hinders, intimidates or resists the official in the performance of the official’s functions; and
(c) the official is a Commonwealth public official; and
(d) the functions are functions as a Commonwealth public official.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
So, if you get a phone call telling you that you have been overpaid and need to pay it back, or receive a letter like the one below, the solution is to ask “which court made the decision that it was my fault?”
This is an excellent example of the s 142, “Abuse of power” law. Remember, this is
- “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; (The Federal Government), or:
- (ii) dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.(Ripping you off.)
- It carries a penalty of imprisonment for 5 years for Centrelink staff who try this one on.
HOW CAN I REMEMBER ALL OF THIS STUFF RON?
- Right click on your mouse and save this webpage to your desktop screen where you find it easily.
- Copy and page this web posting into a Word or Wordpad file and save it to your desktop.
Note: if you live in Adelaide and have been so foolish as to appeal, phone me on 04386 26811 and I may be able to provide you with practice help in persuading Centrelink to stop trying to trying abuse your civil rights and rip you off.
Ron Medlicott – Christian lay advocate for justice in Australia.