Part 33. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity: Filing a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner.

Since Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity are genocidal, the obvious thing to do after almost 7 years of pointing out to Ronald’s space readers that the the Australian Parliament is a long-term serial abuser of human rights was to file a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner.[UNHRC]. The text of the emailed complaint is further  down in this posting. The really boring legal details are contained in this 163 page Emcott Report – Volume 2.[GENOCIDE]

If Centrelink hits you with a Compliance failure penalty or a rip-off demand for repayment of an alleged debt, YOU WILL NEED THIS REPORT IF YOU WANT TO FIGHT BACK.emcott-volume-2

Keep in mind that in 1995, when Serbian militia forces marched 7,000 Moslem men and boys away at gun point, the UN Peace Keeper force simply watched. The next time those men and boys were seen, their bodies were being dug up from a mass grave in the Srebrenica Enclave. The irony in the following long-winded, absolutely boring legal issues complaint to the UNHRC is that Radovan Karadzic’s lawyer, Peter Robinson could use this complaint to mount a manifest Ostensible Bias defence on behalf of his client. Such is the perverse nature of the legal system!

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

Be warned; beyond this point lies the danger of being bored to death if you are not a lawyer, an academic, a desperate welfare recipient being ripped off by Centrelink, or someone looking for a way of “beating the rap” on a criminal charge.


Australia’s Genocide Law – Section 42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act. This Bill was given “Royal Assent” on behalf of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth 2nd, Queen of Australia, by Sir Peter Cosgrove (‘Cossie‘) on 1st July 2016, i.e. during the mass media Federal Election blackout. No politician who voted for this genocidal law wanted the 37.4% of voters who could be harmed by this reprehensible law, to find out what they had done.


The email to the UNHRC

TO:     The office of the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner

            United Nations

            Via email.

Dear Commissioner,

Re: An outraged victim’s complaint concerning Australia’s genocide law and the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll.

 Please note: If I have sent this email to the wrong email address for dealing with alleged genocide or crimes against humanity, please forward this email to the appropriate email address within the UNHRC.

 I provide this email and the appended documents to the UNHRC as a victim’s formal complaint concerning the murderous impact of Australia’s genocide law, Section42C of the Commonwealth of Australia’s Social Security (Administration) Act (1991). [Hereafter referred to as Section 42C for the sake of brevity] A copy of the most recent iteration of this genocidal legislation is appended.

In addition to that genocide legislation, I also append a PDF copy of Part 2 of the Emcott Report, a more detailed 123 page summary of the points of Australian and international law and a summary of my views on this reprehensible, iniquitous law that a person, or persons, in your office have known about for approximately a decade.

It is my opinion that had your office acted when I first contacted it via email about a decade ago, then hundreds of thousands of people would not have been terrorized by the Australian Federal Parliament and an unknown number of lives would have been saved.

Victims of crime do not have to be lawyers or even be functionally literate to file complaints alleging crimes against humanity or genocide, although it certainly helps to have access to legal advice and to also be functionally literate. Please note that in October 2016 I also filed a more detailed complaint but as yet I have not been contacted by a representative of your Office to discuss the issued raised in that email communication.

For the UNHRC to have legal jurisdiction to investigate Section 42C there are a number of legal prerequisites that must be met and I would therefore point out the following points for your consideration as to the merits of this complaint:

  1. Australia is a member of the United Nations and is subject to the provisions found in Article 1 – 4 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Both security of person and the right to life are contained with Article 3 and Section 42C violates these most basic of rights.
  2. Australia has ratified 6 human rights conventions including the Convention on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] and the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [ICESCR].
  3. As you are fully aware, Article 1.2 in both the ICCPR and the ICESCR prohibits the removal of, or denial of access to, the only means of subsistence that a targeted societal group may have.
  4. In July 2009, Francis Neale, the Co-Chairperson for the International bar Association – Rule of Law Action group stated that “All countries, even those governed by the crudest dictatorship, need or have laws, although they disregard the individual or collective rights of all or parts of the population. Indeed, apartheid was enforced with meticulous attention to form and detail.”
  5. Like Apartheid in South Africa, Section 42C is a very deliberate, i.e. legislated, violation of the human rights obligations. In this instance Section 42C violates the obligation not to deprive a targeted societal group of the means to survive. Whilst this legislation may be a defacto death sentence, it is still a death sentence when impoverished people who may be emotionally vulnerable, or who are suffering a life-threatening medical condition, are deprived of their sole means of subsistence and as a direct consequence, wind up dead.
  6. The power to coerce and intimidate implicit in Section 42C is this ability to deprive vulnerable people of the ability to survive. It is truly reprehensible legislation that does no good, only evil.
  7. The death toll caused by this supposedly ‘lawful’ violation of human rights is unreported by the Australian Department of Human Services administrators, a fact that makes it difficult to precisely determine the number of people who have been murdered by the enforcement of this brutal genocidal law.
  8. In November 2005, an Australian senate committee, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, secretly classified submission 287 to the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry as confidential.
  9. A check via the Internet to the web site to ascertain the current status of this submission as to the current status of this submission will confirm that it is officially listed as “Not yet available”.
  10. Titled “Who are the real terrorists?”, this submission raised concerns about the legality of the Section 42C “Breaching fatalities” and it is my belief that the confidential classification of this submission constitutes a violation of section 142.2 and 149 of the Commonwealth of Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), i.e. obstructing justice so that the politicians in the Australia Parliament could both avoid being held accountable for these murders and continue to persecute welfare recipients, possibly for financial and political gain.
  11. In January 2006, and again in March 2006, another senate committee, the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee [EWRE], dismissed the murders of impoverished welfare recipients who had been unconstitutionally and inhumanely deprived of a subsistence allowance, often for incredibly spurious and irrelevant reasons, as “irrelevant”.
  12. It is my opinion that when it comes to deaths caused by the deliberate violation of human rights, regardless of the manner of death, that there is no such thing as an “irrelevant” murder.    
  13. Section 42C has spawned a plethora of other human rights violations that constitute crimes against humanity, including the violation of the right to a fair hearing under Australian laws in accordance with Section 75(v) of the Australian constitution.
  14. Section 75(v) separates the powers of the parliament from the powers of the court and the determination of the primary facts of the matter in tortious conduct by government agencies, e.g. the Department of Human Services or the Department of Social Services, is a matter for the courts, not public servants.
  15. In a clear violation of this constitutional restriction on the Australian Parliament, Section 42C empowers “the Secretary” to make legal decisions that are inconsistent with Section 75(v) of the Australian constitution. By doing so, welfare recipients are deprived of their right to a fair hearing and are forced into a government operated quasi-legal appeals system in which all decision-makers who review decisions “stand in the shoes” of the original decision-makers.

 In summary, it is my belief that in addition to violating a plethora of Australian, state, territory, federal laws, and case law decisions, Section 42C violates the following provisions within the Rome Statute:


THE ROME STATUTE: Article 6 – Genocide [For ‘group’, read ‘welfare recipients’.]

For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a)     Killing members of the group;

(b)     Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c)     Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;


THE ROME STATUTE:  Provisions in Article 7 that may apply to the ‘No show, no pay’ breaching penalties include the following: [It is for a court to decide which provisions apply.]

Article 7 – Crimes against humanity

  1. 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:

(a)     Murder;

(b)     Extermination;

(c)     Enslavement;

 (e)     Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f)     Torture;

(h)    Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

 (k)     Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. [The great ‘catch-all’.]

  1. For the purpose of paragraph 1:

(a)     “Attack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;

(b)     “Extermination” includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;

(c)     “Enslavement” means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;

(d)     “Deportation or forcible transfer of population” means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international 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;

(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;

(h)     “The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;  [Readers please note: Re“domination”, as in the lethal ‘No Show, No Pay’, No Survive law.]

  1. For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term “gender” refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term “gender” does not indicate any meaning different from the above.

Paragraph 5 of the Australian constitution states that “the laws of the Commonwealth are binding on the Courts, judges and the people…”

However, in the appended email below from Federal Agent Pearce, a representative of the Australian Federal Police, “government protocols and “gravity/sensitivity” are given precedence ahead of the constitution and criminal statute laws when members of the Australian Parliament, or the Parliament itself, are accused of breaches of the law.


The ability to violate human rights is perhaps best encapsulated in the Posen Mindset, i.e. the speech given by Heinrich Himmler at an SS conference held in Posen in 1943.

HEINRICH HIMMLER – Adolf Hitler’s ‘Final Solution’.

“This is a glorious page in our history and one that has never been written … We had a moral right, we had a duty, to destroy this people which wanted to destroy us … All in all, we can say that we have fulfilled this most difficult duty for the love of our people. And our spirit, our soul, our character has not suffered injury from it.”

Heinrich Himmler speaking to leaders of the SS at Posen in 1943. (Nuremberg Document PS1919.) In all, some 16 million people, including 10 million Jews, were murdered in Nazi concentration camps.

The power to violate human rights should never be confused with the right to violate these rights. Unfortunately, as happens elsewhere, this is the case in Australia. The contempt of the Australian Parliament for International Law is exemplified by the following examples:

  1. On April 25th 2015, a ‘Full Bench’ decision by 5 justices of the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea handed down its findings in SC1497, Namah v Minister for Immigration, ruling that Australia and Papua New Guinea had violated human rights in the treatment and unlawful detention of asylum seekers on Manus Island.
  2. Justice Terrance Higgins stated that “Treating those required to remain in the relocation centre as prisoners irrespective of their circumstances or status… is to offend against their rights and freedoms.”

In violation of the human rights, vulnerable people were held against their will in circumstances that resulted in 2 fatalities. As a direct consequence of the PNG Supreme Court decision, the Australian Government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, is now trying to re-locate the Manus Island inmates to the United States. Media reports indicate that whilst so of the affected people support this action, some do not. For those who do not wish to be again forcibly relocated against their will, this constitutes a second violation of their human rights by the Australian Government. Given the following statement below, this is not surprising in the least.

  1. ‘This parliament should decide what our obligations are under these conventions – not those who seek to direct us otherwise from places outside this country, such as foreign courts or the United Nations’

The above statement was made by the [then] Minister for Immigration, Scott Morrison MP, during parliamentary debate on the Migration & Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylums Legacy caseload) Bill 2014 during parliamentary debate on the 25th September 2014. That statement to the Australian Parliament was effectively a contemptuous ‘1-finger-salute’ to both the United Nations and the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court by the Australian Parlaiment.

At this time the Australian Federal Treasurer, Mr. Morrison is one of several members of the former Abbott Government who are the subject of a complaint to the International criminal court at The Hague in the Netherlands. In addition to Mr. Morrison, complaints of alleged human rights violations have also been lodged against the former Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, the current Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, and 16 other members of the Abbott Government.

My complaint is far more extensive in its allegations.

Over a timeframe measured in decades, the Australian Federal Parliament, with the support of some sections of the mass media, has violated the civil rights of millions of people. The alleged violations include violating constitutional and human rights, the violation of criminal laws and procedural fairness principles and, perhaps most frightening of all, the violation of the right to life with an unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll that may be close to, or exceeds, 100,000 in number.

My complaint thus encompasses a massive politically driven humanitarian that is of holocaust proportions in scope and it is my contention that it is highly inappropriate for the UNHRC, or any persons employed by the UNHRC, to opt to do nothing about this disaster. The FUNCTION of the UNHRC  is to stop such human rights violations and if the FORM and PROCESS , i.e. the paperwork, is incorrect, that is not a valid excuse for confronting the harm caused by Section 42C.


In 2002 03, the then Australian  Prime Minister, John Howard mislead the Australian people, and by extension, the United Nations, when he claimed to have “irrefutable proof” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. However, after the unsanctioned, i.e. illegal, invasion of Iraq in March 2003, no such weapons were found. On July 6th 2016, the Privy Council of the British Parliament released its 12 volume publication of its inquiry into the illegal invasion. Commonly referred to as the Chilcot Report, it contained the following statements in the executive summary:

[ The Chilcot Report]

Report of a Committee of Privy Counsellors 

Sir John Chilton:

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 6 July 2016

HC 624   [A 7-year inquiry – 2,600,000 words in 12 volumes]

Executive Summary (160 pages)

(Part 4.4 The search for WMD)

Page 77

  1. In addition to the conclusions of those reports, the Inquiry notes the forthright statement in March 2005 of the US Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. Reporting to President Bush, the Commission stated that “the [US] Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure.”
  1. The evidence in Section 4.4 shows that, after the invasion, the UK Government, including the intelligence community, was reluctant to admit, and to recognise publicly, the mounting evidence that there had been failings in the UK’s pre-conflict collection, validation, analysis and presentation of intelligence on Iraq’s WMD.
  1. Almost immediately after the start of the invasion, UK Ministers and officials sought to lower public expectations of immediate or significant finds of WMD in Iraq.
  1. The lack of evidence to support pre-conflict claims about Iraq’s WMD challenged the credibility of the Government and the intelligence community, and the legitimacy of the war.
  1. The Government and the intelligence community were both concerned about the consequences of the presentational aspects of their pre-war assessments being discredited.


The Post Conflict Period

Page 134 – 140

  1. The UK did not achieve its objectives, despite the best efforts and acceptance of risk in a dangerous environment by military and civilian personnel.
  1. Although the UK expected to be involved in Iraq for a lengthy period after the conflict, the Government was unprepared for the role in which the UK found itself from April 2003. Much of what went wrong stemmed from that lack of preparation.
  1. In any undertaking of this kind, certain fundamental elements are of vital importance:
  • the best possible appreciation of the theatre of operations, including the political, cultural and ethnic background, and the state of society, the economy and infrastructure;
  • a hard-headed assessment of risks;
  • objectives which are realistic within that context, and if necessary limited – rather than idealistic and based on optimistic assumptions; and
  • allocation of the resources necessary for the task – both military and civil.


  1. All of these elements were lacking in the UK’s approach to its role in

post-conflict Iraq.

  1. 863. Ground truth is vital. Over-optimistic assessments lead to bad decisions. Senior decision-makers – Ministers, Chiefs of Staff, senior officials – must have a flow of accurate and frank reporting.

A “can do” attitude is laudably ingrained in the UK Armed Forces – a determination to get on with the job, however difficult the circumstances – but this can prevent ground truth from reaching senior ears. At times in Iraq, the bearers of bad tidings were not heard.

  1. The Inquiry views the inability of the FCO, the MOD and DFID to confirm how many civilian personnel were deployed to or employed in Iraq, in which locations and in what roles, as a serious failure. Data management systems must provide accurate information on the names, roles and locations of all staff for whom departments have duty of care responsibilities.


Graphic CNN video footage of the bombardment of Iraqi cities and video footage from news teams pre-embedded with the invading forces shows massive destruction and it is known that in addition to military casualties, there were significant civilian casualties caused by the unjustified, unsanctioned invasion of Iraq. At the present time, the unintended consequences of the illegal invasion of Iraq includes casualties from all causes since the March 2003 invasion are estimated to number around 250,000. Other unintended consequences include the worst refugee crisis in Europe since World War 2 and the replacement of the Saddam Hussein potential ‘threat’ with the world wide real-threat posed by Islamic State, which has carried out dozens of terrorist attacks around the world and in the last year or so, has resulted in some 800 people being murdered.

Since the United states of America has not ratified the Rome statute, President George Bush 2nd, cannot be held accountable for any these ‘collateral damage’ deaths triggered by the illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003. However, Australia ratified the Rome Statute in 2000 and John Howard can be held accountable for the “collateral” death toll. Any investigation by the UNHRC should also look into the ‘collateral’ death toll caused by his government’s illegal enforcement of the Breaching Performance Indicator Targets, i.e. breaching quotas, that Centrelink reported to the Independent Pearce Inquiry in 2001.

There is no statute of limitations on the crime of murder, even if it is systemic, government policy approved. The reference to ‘2004’ in the email below is a reference to the refusal of the Australian Federal Police to investigate these systemic murders. The number of Australian agencies with investigative powers that could have, and should have, investigated these alleged crimes against humanity includes a broad range of agencies that ;ought to have known what was happening and intervened to prevent further harm or loss of life. This did not happen:

  1. The Australian Federal Police [AFP];
  2. Fair Work Australia commission {FWA];
  3. The Australian Crime Commission [ACC];
  4. The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman;
  5. The Australian Communications & Media Authority;
  6. The Australian Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission;
  7. The Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

State level agencies or individual entities that have ignored or disregarded the lethal ‘negative impact’ of welfare penalties include:

  1. The South Australian Police;
  2. The New south Wales Police;
  3. All State and Territory Chief Coroners;
  4. The Sherriff of South Australia; Mark Stokes;
  5. The South Australian Attorney-General, John Rau;
  6. The Queensland Attorney-General, Yvette D’ Arth.

In March 2010, I emailed all 226 Members of the Australian Parliament protesting at the lethal consequences of the “Breaching” penalties. Assistant Secretary Skill’s letter on page 2 of volume 2 of The Emcott Report was the only response. Case studies 64 and 65 of volume 1 of The Emcott Report reveal correspondence between a member of the Federal Parliament, Nick Champion MP, and Assistant Secretary Neil Skill. However, at no time where the deaths reported to the parliament or raised in published Hansard Minutes of oversight committee hearings, e.g. the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. The Hansard Minutes are therefore ‘Gold Standard” evidence of the role of the federal parliament and the Australian Public service in concealing the death toll, whatever its size, from the Australian public, and also from the UNHRC and the ICC.

SOS, HELP, MAYDAY! – desperate circumstances require desperate solutions.

In order too discourage UNHRC ‘paper-shufflers’ from ignoring or losing this complaint, this complaint/appeal for help is being video recorded and will be posted on the Internet for review by any concerned citizens of the world.

Peter Robinson, the ICC accredited lawyer who represented Radovan Karadzic will receive a copy of this email so that if he deems it appropriate to do so, he can use this email and the issues raised in it to mount an Ostensible Bias appeal on behalf of his client.

Beyond that, Burundi, South Africa and Russia have withdrawn from the Rome Statute treaty and a number of other [African] nations are considering doing so, e.g. Kenya. Either this email, or the YouTube URL of the video of this email, will be made available to representatives of these nations, and to international human rights groups, so that any decisions made by the UNHRC in regard to this complaint are transparent decisions.

Finally, I would draw your attention to the intended policy of the Turnbull Government to move away from clean renewal energy sources of electrical generation and implement a potentially very dangerous policy of 76.5% of all power being generated by atmospheric polluting hydro-carbon based electrical energy production. This is potentially a ‘Life-on-Earth-Extinction-Policy as it has the potential to accelerate the process known as Global Warming.

The science behind the 76.5% hydro-carbon base electricity generation policy, if there is any, needs to be scrutinized and compared with the hard data on CO2 pollution levels and the bizarre weather changes that are now being experienced around the world.

Our world is a closed eco-system and if the electrical generation policies of the Turnbull Government pose a risk of increasing global warming, even if it does not represent a “life extinction” threat in the short-term, the 8 ‘Asthma storm’ deaths that recently occurred in Melbourne are inconsistent with the Turnbull Government’s “Right to life” obligations under Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights conventions. This is especially since experts are warning that due to global warming, such lethal storms may become a far more common occurrence.

The 1839 statement by an English Royal Commission that “It is the placing of life in peril that constitutes the crime” sums up the both the deliberate intent and practical consequence of Section 42C. This legislation does place life in peril and the unreported, classified, officially “irrelevant” fatalities are crimes against humanity on such a scale as to justify the use of the terms “genocide” and “holocaust”.

As survivors of the few remaining survivors of the NAZI Holocaust and other holocausts that have plagued our planet in the last 100 years or so can testify, “There are no fence-sitters in a holocaust.” 

The UNHRC must respond to this complaint and the following is expected:

  1. A public acknowledgement of the receipt of this complaint.
  2. An emailed acknowledged that is followed up immediately with a written response outlining any processes that need to be made in order too comply with any UNHRC ‘Due process of Law’
  3. Along with the 7.3 million Australians currently at risk, I have the right to heard and I insist upon the UNHRC respecting that right by assigning a UNHRC representative to talk to me about my concerns re the alleged genocidal impact of Section 42C.
  4. Legal support to prepare and submit any documentation required, if any, by the UNHRC before an investigation.

 Ronald Medlicott. Australian citizen, genocidal policies victim, and a Christian lay advocate for real justice in Australia.


The Media Convergence Review in 2011 was too narrow-minded in outlook thanks to the Gillard Government. The Internet and the nefarious uses it could be used for when targeting children was ignored. One downstream consequence of that short-sighted approach was the murder of Curtis Cheng by a 15-year-old boy, Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad, who had been radicalized via the Internet. One political mistake; two dead people.






This entry was posted in Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights 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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s