Part 15: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. The Mindset of Murder – real-world insight into the bureaucratic mindset of Centrelink staff.

Why is the classified death toll from Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against Humanity so high? Given that one breaching or debt recovery triggered death is one too many, how is it possible that these supposedly “irrelevant” deaths may be cumulatively numbered in the thousands over the last 40 years? Perhaps the real-world example below from my diary notes about dealing with Centrelink staff yesterday can provide insight into what the legal profession and the Courts call the “Mindset of Murder.”

[NOTE: The short link URL for this posting is   ]

What you are about to read are my actual (electronic) diary notes and it is my recommendation that if you must you deal with Centrelink, that you keep accurate records, including your own diary notes which a Court may allow as either evidence or as a memory prompt during a trial.  Please note that I have <redacted> people’s names so as to protect the privacy of the welfare recipient who I was assisting. In addition, I have underlined some text below to draw attention to key issues or significant points of law.


 At approximately 10.15 AM on 21st December 2015, I was interviewed by a Centrelink Customer service Assistant named <Redacted>.

 The documents on pages 1 to 4 of this document were provided to <Redacted> along with a letter of authority to act on <Redacted>’s behalf and copies of <Redacted>’s  pay slips that had been downloaded from the employer’s payroll office.

  1. Relevant details on the three pay slips, i.e. pay period and gross pay, were highlighted with a yellow highlighting pen.
  2. The Centrelink Customer service Assistant, <Redacted>, processed the information and apparently amended <Redacted>’s record and informed me that payments would be adjusted accordingly.
  3. The Centrelink Customer service Assistant unstapled and (digitally) copied some of the information provided, i.e. pay slips and pages 1 and 2 of ’s letter.
  4. I requested that a receipt be provided and also asked that the 4th page of the welfare recipient’s letter be stamped with the Centrelink stamp to certify the information provided.Centrelink stamp

 The Centrelink Customer Service Assistant, <Redacted>, declined to do and sought advice from his supervisor, <Redacted>.

  1. The supervisor,<Redacted>, also declined to stamp the document stating that it was “only for use on internal documents that Centrelink keeps.”

 I pointed out that I was involved in an appeals case that involved Centrelink failing to provide a phone call recording  in an Appeals case .

  1. That statement implied that Centrelink was involved in the commission of a crime for the purpose of obtaining a financial benefit that was not entitled to be received. It was therefore to all intents and purposes a fraud report made to a Centrelink supervisor in the presence of a subordinate Centrelink employee, i.e. the Centrelink Customer Service Assistant, <Redacted>.
  2. The supervisor, <Redacted> repeated refused to hear details of this alleged criminal misconduct, stating of several cases that it was a legal matter for me and she did not need to know about it.
  3. Any reasonable person who was privy to that conversation would have been aware that <Redacted> was perceiving the issue of my request from Centrelink’s administrative perspective and was being most adamant in not wanting to know about systemic issues within Centrelink that reflected badly upon that organization.
  4. Whilst such corporate loyalty is commendable, paragraph 5 of the constitution clearly states that “the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding upon the Courts, judges, and the people” of Australia.
  5. That constitutional imperative means that the moment that I raised the issue of Centrelink withholding evidence in a tort dispute, i.e. the withholding of a phone call recording, <Redacted> was in violation of the constitution because s 142 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) and s149 are serious crimes and <Redacted>’s ‘Don’t tell me, I don’t want to know’ approach to dealing with the serious allegation raised may in itself constitute a matter for a court to consider.
  • 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

 Division 149 Obstruction of Commonwealth Public Officials

149.1 – Obstruction of Commonwealth Public Officials

 A person is guilty of an offence if:

  • The person knows that another person is a public official; and
  • The fist mentioned person obstructs, hinders, intimidates or resists the official in the performance of the official’s functions; and
  • The official is a Commonwealth public official; and
  • The functions are functions as a Commonwealth public official.

 Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

  1. As the above statutes make very clear, these are very serious crimes and as a Commonwealth public official, once I made the statement that Centrelink was withholding evidence, i.e. a phone call recording, in a tort action, at the very least, <Redacted> should have moved the conversation to an office for privacy as another welfare recipient at the desk alongside <Redacted>’s workstation was well within hearing distance of this conversation, a fact that caused me some significant concern.

Since the allegations involve Centrelink officials, I consider that <Redacted>’s actions were consistent with those of a Centrelink staff member acting to protect the reputation of her employer rather than that of public servant acting impartially and her actions call to mind Justice Jarvis’s speech to the Law Society of South Australia 16 March 2007 in which he stated:

 However, in a number of recent appeals from decisions of the Tribunal where the issue of apprehended bias has been raised, the Federal Court has applied the same test that is used where the issue arises in a court,[1] that is, whether the relevant circumstances are such that a fair-minded and informed person might reasonably apprehend that the decision-maker might not bring or have brought an impartial mind to bear on the decision.[2]

  1. The purpose of the Australian Public Service is to serve the public and it is totally inappropriate that any public servants abuse that power to protect their organization, or members of that organization, for the purpose of concealing unlawful activity.
  2. Surely, that is why statutes such as s142 and s 149 exist?
  3. It is my considered opinion that <Redacted>’s actions were inappropriate, both in terms of service to a member of the public, and also in the possibly that her conduct was inconsistent with her constitutional and statutory obligations.
  4. The possibility that <Redacted>’s conduct was unlawfully inappropriate is in itself totally consistent with the conduct of Centrelink in its tortuous conduct against welfare recipients because Centrelink has no jurisdiction to determine the primary facts of matter in all tortuous conduct actions against welfare recipients, a matter of fact made quite clear in paragraphs 141 and 143 of the High Court’s Hellicar decision and the high Court’s Bhardwaj decision at paragraph 53.
  1. In 2002 the Australian High Court ruled at 53 in Minister for Immigration & Cultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] 209 CLR 597, that,

 “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.”

 In 2012 the High Court ruled in ASIC v Hellicar at paragraph 141 the Court 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.”

 At 143 in this case the Court also ruled,

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

 Centrelink has no jurisdiction to determine the primary facts of the matter in either a breach action or a claim for the recovery of overpayments. As these two High Court decisions make very clear, it is a matter for the courts to determine the primary facts of the matter in these disputes and lacking jurisdiction to make such decisions, there is no decision, a fact of law that applies to EVERY BREACH AND EVERY OVERPAYMENT RECOVERY ACTION EVER MADE BY THE DSS OR CENTRELINK EVER SINCE THE VERY 1ST SUCH ACTION TOOK PLACE.

  1. These two decisions are similar in nature to the High Court’s Keating decision in May 2013, a decision that invalidated some 15,000 prosecutions made on behalf of Centrelink by the DPP.
  2. Bhardwaj and Hellicar pull the plug on literally millions of decisions involving tens of billions of dollars and, sadly, the possibility of literally thousands of officially “irrelevant” breaching and debt recovery actions triggered fatalities that are currently the subject of a secret Senate “confidential” classification.
  3. (And quite possibly, one or more secret national Security Directive notices that are intended to conceal from the world, especially the United Nations Human Rights Commission, a politically motivated and driven humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions.)

FOOTNOTES to Justice Jarvis “Apprehended Bias” comments:

These footnotes were in Justice Jarvis’s written copy of his speech to the South Australian Law Society on March 16th 2007 comments. They are case law precedents for the legal issue of “Apprehended Bias”, a procedural fairness issue considered so important that even though Dr. Jayant Patel reported killed 87 of his patients and seriously harmed another 106, today he is a free man. The point that I am making here is that even someone who may have caused many deaths can go free if the dreaded “Apprehended Bias” occurs in the judicial process.

  1. With the Federal Police refusing to investigate hundreds of federal politicians who may have rorted literally millions of dollars, any welfare recipient charged with ripping off Centrelink can mount an “Apprehended Bias” defence and seek to have the case thrown out of court.
  2. This not only applies to welfare recipients; in Queensland there is outrage that Gerard Baden-Clay has had his conviction down-graded from murder to manslaughter, but if he uses the information that I have been posting on this website since 1st July 2012, he may even be able to have that conviction over-turned on the grounds of apprehended bias or manifest ostensible bias.
  3. Is that true or Ronald’s space hog-wash?
  4. Check out the 1st September 2005 findings in Leck v Morris & Ors; Keating v Morris & Ors, {2005] QSC 243.
  5. You can download the Queensland Supreme Court findings at
  6. My advice to people in Queensland who are calling for the State Attorney-General to appeal the recent Baden-Clay decision in the High Court is to think about both Dr. Patel’s successful High Court challenge and to then think about all of the information that I have posted on this website, (and in my Yadnarie12 YouTube postings) before pushing for a High Court appeal.
  7. they should keep in mind that in an AAT “trial” last year I really did say that “In the 10-year period from 1st January 1997 until the 31st December 2006, there were 20,914 suicides; a significant percentage of which were unemployed people.It is not possible to state precisely how many were post breaching fatalities because Centrelink does not collect the data, the Federal Parliament has secretly classified the death toll as “confidential” and “irrelevant”… the Australian Federal Police has refused to investigate [these deaths] because of the “gravity/sensitivity”.

[1]         See for example, Wade v Comcare (2002) 69 ALD 602; Le v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1530; Young v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (2003) 76 ALD 118; NADH of 2001 & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 214 ALR 264; and Peters v Administrative Appeals Tribunal (2005) 144 FCR 417.

[2]         Webb v R (1994) 181 CLR 41 at 70-1 and Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70 at 91-2. In an article by Hayley Katzen, ‘Procedural Fairness and Specialist Members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal’ (1995) 2 Australian Journal of Administrative Law 169, the author refers to an “unacknowledged distinction” in the formulation of the test used in these two High Court cases, but I have been unable to find a case involving the Tribunal since that article was published where any such distinction has been recognised. That is not to say that the application of the test in a particular case should not take into account that the proceedings are being conducted by the Tribunal and not by a Court: see eg Wade v Comcare (2002) 69 ALD 602 at [40] and [41], in the context of apprehended bias arising from dialogue between a deputy president and an unrepresented party.


The mindset of murder is set out in cases such as R v Faure and R v Boughey. (R is code for “The Queen” who is the titular head of state in Australia and is therefore the figurehead of Crown Law.) Breaching is the targeted removal of what may be the only means by which a welfare recipient can survive. In paragraphs 28 & 29 of the Faure case decision,

  1. Justice Brooking pointed out that in murder, it is the placing of life in peril. breaching, is about depriving people of their ability to to meet the basic cost of living.
  2. Logically, if a person cannot do this, they could easily die.
  3. In the Boughey case, which involved a doctor allegedly strangling a woman to death during sexual intercourse, the Court was of the view that because of his expertise, Dr. Boughey should have known that strangling someone could cause their death.
  4. In 2013, Justice Kerr, the President of the AAT gave a speech to the Australian Institute of Administrative Lawyers in which he described lawyers as people who have “privileged expertise.”
  5. By applying the “privileged expertise” logic used by Justice Gibbs in the Boughey case, it is not unreasonable to consider that the many lawyers in the federal parliament who created the potentially lethal, unconstitutional and human rights violating breaching laws, KNEW precisely what they were doing,
  6. Knowing that breaching was both unconstitutional and downright dangerous, they still passed these laws!
  7. When welfare recipients died and people like myself drew the attention of politicians to these fatalities, they responded by either secretly classifying these fatalities as :”confidential, or worst still, as “irrelevant”.
  8. I repeat my warning to people in Queensland who, outraged at the murder of Allison Baden-Clay, want the recent Baden-Clay decision challenged in the High Court, DON’T DO IT UNLESS YOU WANT GERARD BADEN-CLAY TO GET OUT OF JAIL!
  9. I also advise people in Queensland who, outraged at the murder of Daniel Morcombe, want the recent Baden-Clay decision challenged in the High Court, DON’T DO IT IF YOU WANT BRETT COWAN TO GET OUT OF JAIL!
  10. Read this and then put it in the context of a classified death toll that may be in the range of 15,000 – 60,000 fatalities over the last 40 years:
  11. After the Auditor-Generalworked out that 144 federal MPs had ripped off the "Entitlements Fund" to the tune of $4.64 MILLION, the Federal Police again refused to investigate citing almost the same legally invalid reasons as in 2004.

    After the Auditor-General worked out that 144 federal MPs had ripped off the “Entitlements Fund” to the tune of $4.64 MILLION, the Federal Police again refused to investigate citing almost the same legally invalid reasons as in 2004.

    July 04 denley letter page 1

The attitude of the Federal Police in the above communications is essentially, “To hell with the constitution and the law!”

  1. The above documents reveal that when it comes to paragraph 5 of the constitution, i.e. “…the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, judges and the people”, the AFP believe that this only applies to others, not to themselves ort to privileged people under their ‘protection.
  2. It appears that as far as the AFP is concerned, welfare recipients are ‘dole bludgers’ and that makes them ‘life unworthy of life’ and if Centrelink is knocking them off by the thousands by cutting off their dole, then that is okay with the AFP.
  3. As for politicians ripping off millions of dollars in taxpayers money, it appears to be a case of “Who cares what they do” as far as the AFP is concerned?

Will all readers of this posting please note, I care.

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

This entry was posted in 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.