When it comes to Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity, i.e. Breaching penalties triggered fatalities+++, or Centrelink’s fraudulent “Waivergate” scam, these abuses are hard to top. However, when it comes to federal government departments doing outrageous and totally bizarre things that offend, nothing is impossible. How low can you go when the Department of Human Services dysfunctional computer systems sending letters to people who have been dead for 20 years? Below are extracts from a news article by a News Corp journalist, Sue Dunlevy, which provide insight into this latest blunder.
[The short link for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-uR ]
Key points that I would make about this article are:
- Centrelink’s ISIS computer is too unreliable to provide evidence in either criminal prosecutions of welfare recipients for alleged fraud, i.e. Health Minister Sussan Ley’s comment about an “unfortunate administrative error.”.
- This computer system is also too unreliable to provide the “primary facts of the matter” that a court would require when trying to decide who was legally responsible for alleged over-payments to any one of the more than 1 million people who have been over-paid about $5 Billion which Department of Human Services (DHS) bureaucrats have been trying to recover by skipping over the courts and arbitrarily (and unlawfully) deciding that they are not at fault and therefore welfare recipients should repay any over-payments made.
- Breaching is a Crime against Humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of Justice with Breaching triggered fatalities being murders under Article 7 (1) (a). What some of the comments below by the Health Minister, Sussan Ley, appear to indicate is that neither the Ministers responsible for Welfare or health have the slightest idea as to just how many people they have murdered through Breaching and Centrelink’s fraudulent tort claims!
ISIS Letters to the dead – for the full text and details, please go to:
Dead people given e-health records in latest bungle for $1 billion government program.April 16, 20167:00am Sue Dunlevy News Corp Australia Network
EXCLUSIVE. THE federal Health Department is setting up My Health records for people who have been dead for over two decades in the latest bungle to beset the troubled $1 billion project.It comes as a major international technology company CSC last month warned medical practices not to use the My Health Record because of a glitch that meant data for one patient “may be saved against an incorrect patient record”.
And as the Australian Medical Association calls for a major overhaul of the records to integrate them into existing medical software because just 300 GPs are using the records each week.’ Four years after it was launched only 75,000 records are populated with a patient health summary that makes them useful to doctors. As the project to drag health care into the digital age flounders it has emerged the government is setting up My Health records for people who are no longer alive.
- Alison McLaren says her family was shocked and upset to receive a letter from the Department of Health in February informing them a My Health record would be established for her nanna Muriel Stratton who had passed away 20 years ago.
- “It was a real shock to mum because it was so close to the 20th anniversary of Nanna’s passing and was strange to get this letter out of the blue,” said Ms McLaren. “I support e-health but what concerns me is if they are using information that old and getting that wrong, what else are they getting wrong?” she said.
- Roger Grearly says his wife Lillian passed away 23 years ago but he received a letter recently informing him a My Health record would be set up for her. “It bought back a few memories and was a bit emotional,” he says.
- He says another Facebook friend also received a letter informing her a My Health record would be set up for her 19-year-old son who had passed away.
- “Whether it’s blundering or carelessness it’s pretty pathetic,” he said.
The Department of Human Services says it sent letters to people who were deceased because it did not have a date of death recorded against their customer records.
- “The department is aware that of the one million letters sent about the My Health Record trial, a small number have been sent to deceased individuals,” a spokeswoman said.
- “The department sincerely apologises for any distress this has caused.”The department says it is notified of a death from family members and other authorised persons such as health professionals, funeral directors and, in more recent years by data-matching with Birth, Deaths and Marriages registrations.
- “If the department is not notified, a date of death will not be recorded on a customer’s record,” it said.
Minister for Health Sussan Ley offered a direct apology to any family affected by the “‘unfortunate’ administrative error.”
- “What I find disheartening is Labor are quick to use this as an excuse to attack the Government’s IT and payment systems when something goes wrong, but are also actively blocking our attempts to upgrade them so they are more accurate and convenient for patients.”
- Privacy groups fear those with a mental illness or who have had an abortion or sexually transmitted disease or other medical problems they want to keep secret from an employer, insurance company or former partner may be unaware of the privacy risk they face.
- Labor candidate for Macquarie Susan Templeman was approached by potential constituents about the letters written to deceased people and has written to Health Minister Sussan Ley about the mistakes. “These people need an apology from the minster,” she said.
- “The key question is how can anyone have confidence in the process, where such personal details are involved, if the government can’t even work out if someone is alive or dead?” she says in the letter.
- Australian Medical Association president Professor Brian Owler says the real question is “why these letters were sent” and what data base was being used.
RONALD’S SPACE COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE STATEMENTS.
This statement was a monumental pre-election blunder by Sussan Ley:
“‘unfortunate’ administrative error.”
It undermines constant claims by both politicians and Department of Human Services bureaucrats (and Australia’s mass media) that welfare recipients are “rorters” who exploit the system, or when over-payments occur, that it was because welfare recipients were at fault.
This statement was also a monumental pre-election blunder by Ms. Templeman:
“The key question is how can anyone have confidence in the process, where such personal details are involved, if the government can’t even work out if someone is alive or dead?”
As the letter below clearly reveals,six years ago in May 2010, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill wrote that Centrelink did not collect the statistical data on post-breaching fatalities and therefore could not make the information available to me.
I am not surprised that Centrelink bureaucrats have never “collected” the statistics on post-breaching fatalities because EVERY BREACHING is a crime against humanity and EVERY BREACHING FATALITY is a MURDER.
- My most optimistic assessment as to the scale of the “uncollected”, unreported, secretly classified, “irrelevant” death toll is that is its less than 15,000.
- My worst case estimate is that it may exceed 60,000 fatalities.
- Quite clearly, a third option is that the precise number of unreported, “irrelevant” murders is within the range of 15,000 – 60,000.
- Whatever the precise number of murders being concealed, whether through incompetence as is indicated in some of the statements in Sue Dunlevy’s article, or through deliberately not collecting the data as is indicated in Neil Skill’s letter, the plain and simple truth is that no-one can dispute my estimates.
- Adding weight to the validity of my estimates are the official statistics of the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the 1998 National Health Priority Areas Report on mental health.
- During the ‘Howard Years’, i.e 1997 – 2006, there were 23,254 suicides and approximately one in 3 was an Centrelink clients, most of whom were unemployed people.
- Extrapolating to the full 11 years and 5 months that John Howard held office, that is a suicide toll in excess of 8,000 people, a figure that is directly comparable with the 1995 Srebrenica Massacre in Bosnia!
RADOVAN KARADZIC could exercise his right to a fair trial under Article 10 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”
Articles 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that “All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. .
- The catch 22 with Radovan Karadzic’s conviction by the International Court on March 24th 2016 is that if he lodges an “APPREHENDED BIAS or MANIFEST OSTENSIBLE BIAS appeal on the grounds that the United Nations , and Australia’s criminal justice system, have ignored the death toll caused by Breaching laws in Australia, then he may win an appeal on these grounds.
- A win is not about being found innocent of the Srebrenica murders; it is a legal loophole that allows EXCULPATION, i.e. the charges are tossed out and, thanks to the ‘double-jeopardy’ rule which prevents a person being tried twice for the same crime, he could be released.appeal avoid being held accountable before the courts for these murders.
- People who support Radovan Karadzic can research the Australian federal parliament’s HANSARD minutes over the last 40 years.
- Ditto for the various oversight committees for welfare, employment and human rights.
- They could also research and examine breaching laws contained in the 100s of variations of the Social Security Act and Social Security (Administration) Act over the last 40 years.
- In the same manner, the annual reports and quarterly public accountability reports from the departments of Human Services, Social Security, Employment, and agencies such as the Australian Human Rights Commission, The Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Australian Federal Police could also be vetted for evidence of the concealment of the death toll caused by the crimes against humanity committed against Australia’s impoverished welfare recipients.
- Then there are the documents contained in this website that can also be used as starting points for identify the politicians, bureaucrats and police officers who are involved in the concealment of these crimes.s
- This would be an impossibly huge task for one person but no big deal for a co0rdinated team effort, especially one undertaken by the Bosnian Government which appears to be pro-Karadzic.
The irony is that people who want Radovan Karadzic to stay in jail for the rest of his life would need to research the same information and then lobby the United Nations to conduct a Crimes against Humanity inquiry into Australia’s uncollected, unreported, classified, “irrelevant” death toll.
END NOTE: Sue Dunlevy can have the last word on the ‘letters to the dead” fiasco. Australia’s federal political parties like to claim that they are sound economic managers but as the points in Ms. Dunlevy’s article, including this point below, make quite clear, the primary skill of these politicians appears to be the ability to preside over hugely bureaucratic disasters.
The National E- Health Transition Authority (NEHTA) in charge of the record revealed in 2012 it had spent over $5 million on travel and entertaining stakeholders in five star hotels. This included one event at Sydney’s Intercontinental Hotel where guests were offered steak and seafood and crème brulee. A former policeman was the motivational speaker at the dinner and entertained guests with grisly details about murders while they were eating dessert.
A Christian lay advocate for fair and impartial justice in Australia.
FOOTNOTES – TEXT IN CONTEXT: Why are Australia’s legislated welfare penalties ‘Crimes against Humanity’ and why do I believe that Breaching triggered fatalities are murders? the answer is complex but the Rome Statute provides significant insight and understanding:
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Article 7 of the Rome Statute deals with Crimes against Humanity. Section 7.2 contains the following definitions that are, under the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, are Facts of Law:
(e) “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions; (A problem is that any parliament can create laws to by-pass this weak sanction!)
(g) “Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;
Article 7 (1) (a) states: “For the purpose of this Statute, ‘crime against humanity’ means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack
directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
Article 7 (1) (k) further states: “Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”
The last sentence in Article 1 (2) of the International Convention for Civil and Political Rights states: “In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.”
Paragraph 51, sub-paragraph xxiii (a) of the Australian constitution also places an obligation upon the Australian Federal Parliament to PROVIDE A subsistence allowance to welfare recipients that cannot be linked to “civil conscription”, i.e. forced labour.
“The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances:”
Legislated welfare penalties are intended to circumvent both the constitution and the human rights obligation not to deprive people of their only means of subsistence, i.e. the arbitrary imposition of the legislated penalties, commonly referred to as “Breaching” work by accusing a person of a “breach of contract” and the penalty is to deprive a person of their only means of subsistence for a period measured in months.
Survival for any person under such conditions would be almost impossible, a fact highlighted in September 2014 when a Senate human rights committee inquiry stated in Report #12 at 2.10 The committee thanks the Minister for Social Services for his response.
2.11 However, the response does not provide any further information as to how young people are to sustain themselves during a six-month period without social security. The committee noted in its original assessment that information regarding the likely impact of the measure on individuals and their families, and how individuals subject to the measure will retain access to adequate shelter and food, is necessary in order to assess the human rights compatibility of this measure.
- The core question that the Human Services Minister declined to answer was the question as to “how individuals subject to the measure will retain access to adequate shelter and food”.
- This was a highly leading question that Kevin Andrews, the Human Services Minister, and a former barrister, did not provide an adequate answer too. However, that question opens up the question of how did people survive under the former 3-month breaching penalty period and the current 2-month breaching penalty period.
- Further compounding the criminal negligence issue was a Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal decision in 1999, R v Faure at paragraph 14 the Court ruled:“His Honour distinguished wilful murder from reckless murder – understandably, those expressions were not used – by telling the jury, by way of modification of what might be called the usual definition of murder given to juries, that there were two different intents, either of which would, in conjunction with the other elements of the crime, constitute the crime of murder. The first was the intent either to kill or to do really serious injury and the second was the knowledge that it was probable that death or really serious injury would result from the act done.”
- In paragraph 29 the Court ruled “It is the placing of life in peril that constitutes the crime.” Breaching willfully placed life in peril by deliberately depriving impoverished people of their only means of subsistence but that was, and is, only part of the risk assessment problem.
- In Chapter 2 of the 1998 National Health Areas Report – mental health, the most common cause of suiicde was listed as “Poverty”, e.g unemployment” whilst the best defence against a person committing suicide was “support”.
- Breaching was, and still is, a violation of constitutional, legal, common law rights and human rights that protected by international laws and treaties, e.g. Article 1 (2) of the ICCPR. The risk of triggering a suicide is easily foreseen, an issued addressed in high Court appeals such as Boughey, where foreseeably fatal consequences determine whether a murder was due to either reckless indifference or willful intent.
- In a speech given in London on April 17th 2012, Joe Hockey stated “The entitlements bestowed on tens of millions of people by successive governments, fuelled by short-term electoral cycles and the politics of outbidding your opponents is, in essence, undermining our ability to ensure democracy, fair representation and economic sustainability for future generations.… It is ironic that the entitlements system seems to be the most obvious and prevalent in some of the most democratic societies. Most undemocratic nations are simply unable to afford the largesse of universal entitlement systems. So, ultimately the fiscal impact of popular programs must be brought to account no matter what the political values. The government are or how popular a spending program may be. Let me put it this way the age of entitlement is over. We should not take this is cause for despair.”
- As far as Joe Hockey was concerned, fiscal priorities were more important than human rights and constitutional obligations to provide a subsistence allowance to welfare recipients.
- On 30th September 2016, during Question time in the Australian Parliament, Prime Minister Tony Abbott expressed similar sentiments when the above mentioned senate report rejected his attempt to deprive unemployed people of a subsistence allowance for 6-months.
- “I am all in favour of rights. I am also in favour of the rights of taxpayers not to have their money abused”.
- There is a very frightening parallel between what Australia’s right wing politicians say and the Holocaust mantra of leading Nazi politicians such as Heinrich Himmler who in 1943 justified the mass murder of millions of Jewish people with this statement: