Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity reached a new low point last week when Centrelink ordered a parent to DISOWN THEIR CHILD, and then suspended the Family Tax Benefit payments when the parent refused to do so.
NOTE: The short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-LS
CENTRELINK: DISOWN YOUR CHILD OR ELSE!
Consider the various constitutional, criminal and human rights violations in this statement received by me on Monday, 23 January 2017 at 8:44 AM:
” I did go into centrelink to see about her getting the money. However they said I’d need to sign a stat DEC saying that I’d kicked my son out for him to receive the money. As this wasn’t true, continued to hand over his bit. Now my ftb is suspended.”
NOTE: Only the Family Court has legal jurisdiction to deprive a parent of guardianship rights to their child.
THE CRIME OF MENACE
This was yet another very serious violation of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act that Centrelink violates literally millions of times each year, i.e. the crime of “Menace”, the unwarranted demands by a public servant.
Commonwealth Criminal Code Act Part 7.5—Unwarranted demands -Division138—Preliminary
138.1 Unwarranted demand with menaces
(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person (the first person) makes an unwarranted demand with menaces of another person if, and only if:
(a) the first person makes a demand with menaces of the other person; and
(b) the first person does not believe that he or she has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(c) the first person does not reasonably believe that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
(2) This Part applies to a demand whether or not it is for property.
(3) This Part applies to a demand with menaces, whether or not the menaces relate to conduct to be engaged in by the person making the demand
(1) For the purposes of this Part, menaces includes:
(a) a threat (whether express or implied) of conduct that is detrimental or unpleasant to another person; or
(b) a general threat of detrimental or unpleasant conduct that is implied because of the status, office or position of the maker of the threat.
Threat against an individual
(2) For the purposes of this Part, a threat against an individual is taken not to be menaces unless:
(i) the threat would be likely to cause the individual to act unwillingly; and
(ii) the maker of the threat is aware of the vulnerability of the individual to the threat; or
(b) the threat would be likely to cause a person of normal stability and courage to act unwillingly.
NOTE: Threatening to sell a welfare recipient’s home if they do not agree to repay an alleged overpayment “debt” is one such example of a menace. For impoverished, functionally illiterate welfare recipients who do not know their civil rights, threatening to prosecute them if they do not agree to repay an alleged overpayment “debt” is another example of how welfare recipients are menaced.
The worst legislated example of a menacing threat is the unconstitutional, human rights violating and recklessly dangerous menace found in s. 42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act, i.e. “No show, no pay” statute which penalizes people by depriving them of the means to subsist. This law is so beyond the concept of “Good Government” that it is virtually unbelievable.
In violation of the constitution, human rights treaty obligations and criminal laws dealing with intentional harm, “No show, no pay” is a law that literally plays Russian roulette with the lives of very vulnerable people.
“No show, no pay” is intended to cause serious harm and is therefore yet another violation of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, Section 146 – “Harm”
146.1 Definitions (Note: some are omitted from the listing below.)
In this Part: fear includes apprehension.
(a) physical harm (whether temporary or permanent); or
(b) harm to a person’s mental health (whether temporary or permanent);
but does not include being subjected to a force or impact that is within the limits of what is reasonably acceptable as incidental to:
(c) social interaction; or
(d) life in the community.
harm to a person’s mental health includes significant psychological harm to the person, but does not include a reference to ordinary emotional reactions (for example, distress, grief, fear or anger).
serious harm means any harm (including the cumulative effect of more than one harm) that:
(a) endangers, or is likely to endanger, a person’s life; or
(b) is, or is likely to be, significant and longstanding.
146.2 Causing harm
For the purposes of this Part, a person’s conduct is taken to cause harm if it substantially contributes to harm.
Deliberately depriving a person of their sole means of subsistence, i.e. “the Dole”, is a major crime. If a person should be so “stupefied and overwhelmed” emotionally or financially and they wind up dead, the crime escalates to MURDER.
The key to dealing with such criminal abuses of power is to KNOW YOUR RIGHTS.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar  HCA 17 (3 May 2012)
At paragraph 141 you will find this:
“And insofar as the duty was said to stem from a proposition “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”, that premise is false for at least two reasons.”
In paragraph 143 you find this incredible statement: “Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.”
Centrelink can say you have been overpaid, but before they can order you to repay a cent, a court must decide the facts of the matter, i.e. who was at fault and why the fault occurred in the first place.
And then there is Bhardwaj at paragraph 53:
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj  HCA 11; 14 March 2002.
“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.”
IN LAW, Centrelink’s so-called ‘legal decisions‘, are NO DECISION AT ALL
IN LAW, Centrelink’s so-called ‘legal decisions‘, are NO DECISION AT ALL
By implying, or by stating outright that Centrelink overpayments HAVE TO BE REPAID if Centrelink says so, any public official making such a statement is violating section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act:
‘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.
WHY SAYING “NO”IS VITAL
IF Centrelink makes any attempt to stop, deprive, reduce your welfare benefits, JUST SAY “NO”. Bhardwaj at paragraph 51 emphasizes the need to say “NO”. “Further, there is a certain illogicality in the notion that, although a decision involves jurisdictional error, the law requires that, until the decision is set aside, the rights of the individual to whom the decision relates are or, perhaps, are deemed to be other than as recognised by the law that will be applied “IF AND WHEN THE DECISION IS CHALLENGED.”
When you say “NO”, Centrelink’s arbitrary decision has been legally “CHALLENGED” and it automatically becomes a matter for the courts. Centrelink has to prove that you were in the wrong.You don’t have to prove Centrelink was wrong but this Administrative Appeals Tribunal bomb blows apart any claims that Centrelink does not make mistakes:
Check out the ‘Killer punch’ in paragraph 45 below, i.e. “The Tribunal’s inability to exercise powers other than those available to the decision-maker can lead to injustice in some cases.”
TRANSLATION: If Centrelink makes a bad decision, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has no power to do anything about that decision! What sort of Dickensian Bleak House farce of an appeal system is that? It is the appeal system that you have when you are not having an appeal; a fact made even worse as it is run like a court although it is, by Act of Parliament, supposed to be an “informal” appeal system.
Incorrect advice by Centrelink
As discussed above, [the applicant] stated that she was incorrectly advised by a Centrelink officer not to include her split shift and toilet allowance in the gross income she reported to Centrelink for DSP purposes during the Relevant Period and that she acted on that advice, resulting in an overpayment of DSP during the Relevant Period and a debt to Centrelink.
The Tribunal’s power to stand in the shoes of the decision-maker, in this case the Secretary, is exercisable only in relation to the decision under review, in this case the SSAT Decision. The Tribunal has no general review or decision-making power and it cannot substitute for the decision-maker generally. As Brennan J said in Re Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd and Collector of Customs (NSW) (1978) 1 ALD 167 at 175: “The AAT is not the primary administrator. It is not the original repository of powers and discretions under an enactment”. The Tribunal’s inability to exercise powers other than those available to the decision-maker can lead to injustice in some cases. For example, where a strict application of the law results in unfairness to an applicant.
A person, like [the applicant], who is dissatisfied with a departmental decision may have other courses of action open to him or her, including lodging a complaint with the Commonwealth Ombudsman or applying to the Federal Court of Australia under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJRA) for a review of the decision concerned on grounds which include breach of natural justice, improper exercise of power and no evidence to justify the making of the decision: see s 5(1) of the ADJRA.
Forget the Ombudsman – Check this out:
The Ombudsman’s Office simply ignored High Court’s Bhardwaj and Hellicar decisions, even though they had NO JURISDICTION, i.e. no legal right to do so. The decision in the letter above is an example of a decision that, in law, is no decision at all.
APPEALING A CENTRELINK DECISION.
If you have been the victim of a “let’s skip the courts and your constitutional rights” decision by Centrelink, I strongly recommend that you follow these six steps:
It is your right to object to the decision and to demand that the primary facts of the matter as “adduced by a court” before any decision is made by Centrelink.
Demand that all credible, relevant facts that may be significant to the matter, e.g. internal systemic staffing and information technology problems be fully disclosed so that a court can make a fair and impartial judgement before “adducing the primary facts of the matter.”
If there is no court decision as to the primary facts of the matter, and there will not be any if you have not attended a court to put your case, read out the Hellicar and Bhardwaj court decisions above to the Centrelink official that is handling the Centrelink claim and again ask for the primary facts of the matter to be “adduced by a court” in accordance with your constitutional and legal rights.
Point out that deliberately by-passing the courts constitutes criminal misconduct under sections 142.2 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995).
If necessary, read out these criminal law statutes and provide a copy in writing, e.g. a copy of this report and then ask the official who refuses to accept these decisions if they wish to face criminal charges for unlawful abuse of power.?
If the official, or officials, still refuse to do recognize your legal rights, file complaints with the Federal Police, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and the Human Rights Commission alleging violations of sections 142.2 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995.)
Finally: If you have not yet watched this brilliant 99 second video, do so right now:
Centrelink fail – Honest Government Advert https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoD0efoHzeA
Hilarious isn’t it? However, this video is actually accusing Centrelink of fraud. Implied, but not stated, is the fact that if this crime kills a person, then that death is probably a MURDER for financial gain.
Registered teacher and a Christian lay advocate for justice.