Part 42 C. AAT 2016/5334 may be the legal precedent that finally ends 40 years of persecution, intimidation, fraud and murder, e.g it may be able to shut down Malcolm Turnbull’s infamous Tudge Fudge Fraud.

AAT 2016/5334

Overpaid by Centrelink, been breached, or had your disability pension cancelled?


  Note: The short link URL for this posting is:

AAT 2016/5334 – Statement of Facts & Issues, page 3 extract:

 “If I am correct, over a time frame measured in decades, the Australian Federal Parliament has deliberately raped the civil rights of 4 – 5 million vulnerable Australians and as a direct consequence of this systematic rape of rights, the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll caused by this ravaging of civil rights may be close to, or even exceed,100,000 in number. 

 On February 21st 2017, I submitted a detailed Statements of Facts & Issues for AAT appeal case file 2016/5334 that was based upon the High Court’s Hellicar, Bhardwaj and Coco decisions and the South Australian Supreme Court’s Police v Butcher decision. The very next day, the lawyer representing the Federal Government, Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, conceded the merits of the appeal submission within a day and issued a “Without prejudice” offer that reset the situation to before Centrelink’s arbitrary decision to deprive the applicant of a disability pension.

In effect, the tort action started by centrelink by depriving a disability pensioner of his pension was  settled ‘out of court’.  The AAT 2016/5334 decision can now be used as a legal precedent to refute Malcom Turnbull’s ruthless Tudge Fudge Fraud;  a fraudulent abuse of power scheme that, if Andrew Wilkie MP is correct, may be fraudulently scamming as many as 4,000 people per day.


The Devil really is in the detail.

40 years of criminal abuse of power by successive federal government under both Liberal and Labour Prime Ministers cannot be summed up in a single Word Press posting, or even in a 1,000  postings such as this. Therefore there needs to be an easier way for the estimated 5 million  victims of Waivergate, and Breachgate the current ruthless Tudge Fudge Fraud, to receive justice.

PLAN A: If you live in South Australia and have been scammed by the Turnbull Government, one of the easiest ways to deal with the Tudge Fudge Fraud is to take all of the paperwork that Centrelink sent you to the nearest police station and file a fraud complaint under sections 138,  142.2 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act and sections 171 and 172 of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act. You can ask the police to obtain copies of all of the documents that were submitted by the applicant’s Representative to the New South branch of the Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Anyone living elsewhere in Australia can do the same but you may have to do your own research on your state’s blackmail, intimidation and extortion laws.

Alternately, why not go with PLAN B?

Print out Parts 42, 42B and this posting and take them to the police. The text below is written for police officers in every state to consider; however, the mission-critical question is just how many people will snap up this golden opportunity to fight for justice? With the possibility of 5 million or so victims and a death toll that may be around the 100,000 mark [from all causes], the way is open for the largest criminal investigation in Australia’s history IF, I repeat, IF victims can overcome their fear and doubt and file complaints with their local police.

I hope that many survivors of what is, in law, effectively a humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions, will find the courage and the faith to use this letter and hold those responsible for 40 years of inhuman abuse accountable for their actions.

Dear Police Officer:

If you are an ordinary reasonable person, you will initially disbelieve everything that you are told by people who may bring a print-out of this posting to you. However, facts do not cease to exist simply because you may have trouble believing them. You must act in a professional manner and set aside any personal disbelief or unbelief and look at the facts of the matter, e.g. following irrefutable evidence. The court case below are real and the ramifications of these decisions cannot be ignored.

 Here is Hellicar at paragraphs 141 and 143

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17

[141] “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…”

 [143] Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.” 

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11

[53] “…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.”


The High Court’s  Hellicar and Bhardwaj make very clear the fact that, in law, Centrelink has to prove any claims concerning overpayments, alleged ‘breach of contract, and eligibility for welfare benefits, in a court of law. Contrary to populist driven policies and practices, and claims made by prime Minister Turn, Attorney-General George Brandis, and other members of the Turnbull Government, welfare recipients do not have to prove that Centrelink is wrong.

As can be seen and heard in the above video segment of an ABC program, Q and A, that was broadcast on 20th February 2017, using a computer to automatically assume that welfare recipients are at fault as George Brandis and Tanya Slibersek have been doing it since 2011 has been very convenient. Unfortunately, as the following case law example below makes quite clear, administrative convenience is, in law, not a valid reason for violating common law rights, let alone constitutional rights, which are the ultimate in inalienable legal rights in Australia.

Coco v R [1994] HCA 15 (13 April 1994)

Below are verbatim quotes from paragraphs  8 and 9 of this High Court decision; they contains to binding legal precedents that are relevant to the practice used by the Federal Government-of-the-day since 2011 to initiate tort computer generated tort actions:

 In accordance with that principle, a police officer who enters or remains on private property without the leave or licence of the person in possession or entitled to possession commits a trespass unless the entry or presence on the premises is authorized or excused by law ((2) Halliday v.Nevill (1984) 155 CLR at 10 per Brennan J; Plenty v. Dillon (1991) 171 CLR at 639 per Mason CJ, Brennan and Toohey JJ, 647 per Gaudron and McHugh JJ).

“Statutory authority to engage in what otherwise would be tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and unambiguous language.”

 Indeed, it has been said that the presumption is that, in the absence of express provision to the contrary, the legislature did not intend to authorize what would otherwise have been tortious conduct ((3) Plenty v. Dillon (1991) 171 CLR at 648 per Gaudron and McHugh JJ; Morris v. Beardmore (1981) AC 446 at 455, 463; Colet (1981) 119 DLR (3d) at 527-528.). But the presumption is rebuttable and will be displaced if there is a clear implication that authority to enter or remain upon private property was intended. Such an implication may be made, in some circumstances, if it is necessary to prevent the statutory provisions from becoming inoperative or meaningless.  However, as Gaudron and McHugh JJ observed in Plenty v. Dillon ((4) (1991) 171 CLR at 654.):

 “(I)nconvenience in carrying out an object authorized by legislation is not a ground for eroding fundamental common law rights”.

  1. In England, Lord Browne-Wilkinson has expressed the view that the presence of general words in a statute is insufficient to authorize interference with the basic immunities which are the foundation of our freedom; to constitute such authorization express words are
    ((5) Wheeler v. Leicester City Council[1985] UKHL 6;(1985) AC 1054 at 1065; see also Marcel v. Commissioner of Police (1992) Ch 225 at 234;

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, “The Infiltration of a Bill of Rights”, (1992) Public Law 397 at 404-408.). That approach is consistent with statements of principle made by this Court, to which we shall shortly refer. An insistence on the necessity for express words is in conformity with earlier judicial statements in England which call for express authorization by statute of any abrogation or curtailment of the citizen’s common law rights or immunities. Thus, in Raymond v. Honey, Lord Bridge of Harwich stated that ((6) [1981] UKHL 8(1983) 1 AC 1 at 14.) :
Thus, in Raymond v. Honey, Lord Bridge of Harwich stated that ((6) [1981] UKHL 8(1983) 1 AC 1 at 14.):

“a citizen’s right to unimpeded access to the courts can only be taken away by express enactment”.


The above statements about “clear wording”, “inconvenience” not being reasonable grounds for eroding common law rights, and the above statement re “a citizen’s right to unimpeded access to the courts can only be taken away by express enactment” all reinforce the Hellicar decision at paragraph 143, i.e. “deciding the facts of the matter is a matter for the courts.”


POLICE v BUTCHER [2016] SASC 130 (17 August 2016)

Centrelink’s ISIS computer system is not a legal entity and, whilst it may be convenient to do so, it is not able to initiate tort actions, e.g. accuse people of being overpaid. In addition, the ISIS computer is extremely dysfunctional and its output, in law, constitutes UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE. In August 2016, a South Australian Supreme Court decision, Police v Butcher, highlighted the need for evidence that was, on the balance of probability, extremely reliable and credible. The findings of this case can be read at:

Note the KEY WORDS:



Minor failures in meeting Austrain Standards for recalibration of a LIDAR speed gun undermined the validity of SAPOL’s case and the Supreme Court rulked that Mr. Butcher’s speeding penalties, be set aside. In making this decision, not only did the SA Supreme Court undermine thousands of other speeding fines, the court under-minded Centrelink’s use of a computer sytem that in 2016, was wrong 107,000 times out of 243,000 times in claiming welfare recipients had been overpaid.

DO THE MATHS: 107,000/243,000 X 100 IS  AN ERROR RATE OF 44.03%

No could could reasonably base a civil action action decision on a computer with such a high acknowledged rate of error. In fact, on the balance of probability, this extreme dysfunctional-ism, when combined with the use of inadequately trained staff who do not hold current competency  AS 2708 Keyboard certification skills or appropriate qualifications to make the decisions that they assume they have a ‘right’ to make, may be the prime causes of billions of dollars in over-payment errors.

The statement of Facts & issues submissions in AAT 2016/5334 highlighted these deficiencies and the failure of Ms. Ulrick to challenge these statements of fact means that they can legitimately be used as a legal precedent by any other person who wants to challenge the validity of Centrelink’s fraudulent tortious conduct claims.


It may be very convenient for the government-of-the-day to misuse federal legislation to force unsuspecting welfare recipients, who do not know about the above case law decisions, to try and prove the impossible, i.e. that Commonwealth errors have occurred and the alleged debt must therefore be waived, this tactic is a very serious criminal abuse of power that violates numerous federal criminal statutes, e.g. section 142.2, section 149.1 and section 138. When this abuse results in fatalities, in most states, these deaths are homicides that, once reviewed in a coroner’s court, may be re-classified as Murders for financial gain.

In South Australia, all suicides that are triggered by this criminal abuse of power are murders under section 13.7 of the SA criminal code.

13A—Criminal liability in relation to suicide

(7) A person who, by fraud, duress or undue influence, procures the suicide of another or an attempt by another to commit suicide shall (whether or not he was a party to a suicide pact with the other person) be guilty of murder or attempted murder, as the case may require.

Similar provisions apply in all other states and territories, e.g. section 18.1 in News South wales, section 302.4 in Queensland, section 279.4 in Western Australia, section 279.4

Most communications from Centrelink contain a menacing threat, i.e. to deprive a welfare recipient of the means to subsist if non-compliance with Centrelink’s often unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful, demands or  commands are not obeyed. In effect, Centrelink’s approach to communication with the people of Australia is “do as we say or we will deprive you of the means to survive.”

The Tasmanian criminal code may contain one of the best clearly worded examples of just how unlawful this activity is:

  1. Written threat to murder

Any person who, knowing the contents thereof, wilfully, and with intent thereby to intimidate or influence any person, causes such person to receive any writing threatening to kill him or any other person, is guilty of a crime.

Charge: Threatening to murder.

Statistics contained in Centrelink annual reports and quarterly public accountability reports make it quite clear that this is not an idle, threat. For example in FY 2000-01, Centrelink deprive 346.078 impoverished people of the their constitution right to a welfare payment. Whilst the Howard Government may have trumpeted this as “sound economic management”, it was in fact a criminally reckless abuse of power that violated Genocide and Crimes against Humanity provisions within articles 6 and 7 of the Rome Statute:

162A. Failing to report the killing of a person

(1) In this section,

proper authority means any of the following:

(a) a police officer;

(b) a correctional officer within the meaning of the Corrections Act 1997;

(c) a probation officer within the meaning of the Corrections Act 1997;

(d) a Crown Law Officer.

(2) A person is guilty of a crime if he or she –

(a) discovers that another person has been killed; and

(b) fails without reasonable excuse to report that discovery to a proper authority as soon as practicable.

Charge: Failing to report the killing of a person.

(3) A person is guilty of a crime if he or she –

(a) discovers that another person is being subjected to conduct that, if repeated or continued, is reasonably likely to result in that other person being killed; and

(b) fails without reasonable excuse to report that discovery to a proper authority as soon as practicable.

[MY COMMENT] When it comes to hiding the serial murders of an unknown number of people who died as a direct consequence of the deliberate violation of civil rights, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill’s letter is crucial evidence of the way in which  as yet unnumbered of the serial murders have been concealed by politicians and bureaucrats.skill-certified

DON’T ASK – DON’T TELL; How to hide your murders? The solution is very simple; do not mention the fatalities in official reports because you have not bothered to collect the statistics that should be in these reports. What makes it even easier, the senators on senate oversight committees never ask about the easily foreseeable deaths toll that their legislation could cause.

Charge: Failing to report the impending killing of a person.

(4) A person is guilty of a crime if he or she –

(a) discovers that the killing of another person is being planned; and

(b) fails without reasonable excuse to report that discovery to a proper authority as soon as practicable.

Charge: Failing to report the planned killing of a person.

(5) Without limiting the matters that may constitute a reasonable excuse for the purposes of subsection (2), (3) or (4), a person is excused from reporting a discovery to a proper authority under this section if –

(a) the person knows or reasonably suspects that –

(i) another person has already reported the discovery to a proper authority; or

(ii) a proper authority has already made the same discovery; or

(b) reporting the discovery would disclose information that is privileged on the ground of legal professional privilege.

A really sickening aspect of 5 (b) above is the use of parliamentary privilege to conceal these murders and the Australian Federal Police turning a blind-eye to these murders and allowing the defrauding and murder of welfare recipients to continue for years. Consider these documents, which have the cumulative effect of concealing serial murders for years and allowing the number of deaths to rise to levels that are now well and truly unbelievable:

LEGCON committee gag - undated but posted to me in November 2005

A Check on submissions to the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry will show that submission 287 is officially “Not yet available”. As this letter reveals, it is secretly classified as confidential.




The ACMA does not investigate alleged offenders

11-05-10 ACC refusal to investigate the Federal Police

The Australian Crime Commission is yet one more crime fighting agency that ducked for cover when the issue the possibility that the Federal Police and the Howard Government had done a ‘dirty deal’ dropped into their lap.


1-3-10 ECA Senate Committee gag.

Another “don’t copy, don’t distribute” Senate gag intended to prevent the general public from finding out about the death toll caused by the Howard Government’s illegal Breaching performance Indicator target Quotas.

AFP refusal to investigate Perksgate email


Ron Medlicott

TRT & Christian volunteer lay-advocate.

This entry was posted in crimes against humanity, 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 )

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