Part 43D. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. The ‘Candy Crush Report’ – insight into how the Australian Federal Parliament has made defrauding welfare recipients as easy as stealing candy from a baby.

  1. This posting provides insight into “THE CANDY CRUSH Report”, officially known as THE COMPLEXITY REPORT. 

  2. Limited information about this report can be found in Hansard Minutes of a Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearing held on 26th of  February 2015.

  3. The ‘Candy Crush Report; should be read in the context of the High Court’s landmark  Kioa v West [HCA 81], a legal precedent handed down on 18 December 1985.

NOTE: The short link for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-10R

[In Brief:] The statements by the DHS Secretary, Kathryn Campbell, and Senator Marisse Payne in the Hansard Minutes extracts below reveal that the government is fully aware of the many complex systemic deficiencies in the (now) 35-year-old) Integrated Social Infrastructure System [ISIS] that constitute the basis for “unreliable evidence” rebuttals of Centrelink’s fraudulent [tort] claims. Despite the High Court’s 1985 Kioa ruling that “adverse information that was credible, relevant and significant must be made available”, [see below] the DHS official report about these massive, extremely complex systemic problems is withheld from welfare recipients who are being unconstitutionally required to prove that Centrelink is at fault for overpayments!

‘The Candy Crush’ Report:

One more reason the Robo-debt Scam should be called Robo-Gate.

Without the ‘The Candy Crush’ Report, i.e. “The Complexity Report”, which was provided to the Federal Government by the Department of Human Services in February 2015, it is almost impossible for the average welfare recipient, if they have not kept detailed records for years, to prove that Centrelink is solely at fault with any ALLEGED overpayment claims. This is yet another reason why the unconstitutional Robo-debt demands are ‘Robo-fraud’, i.e. Digital Data Fiction Fraud {2D2f}. In effect, by withholding “The Candy Report”, defrauding welfare recipients using Robo-dent is “as easy as stealing “candy from a baby.”]

The legal precedent in paragraph 39 of Justice Brennan’s findings in Kioa v West [below], was and still is, an incredibly powerful binding precedent that can be used when refuting the blatantly fraudulent claim by Centrelink, on behalf of the Turnbull Government, that “skip the courts” as per Hellicar at 141 – 143.

Remember, in Hellicar at 142, the High Court ruled:

  1. First, the proposition ignores that even a criminal trial “is not, and does not purport to be, an examination and assessment of all the information and evidence that exists, bearing upon the question of guilt or innocence”.’

  2. ‘ Each side in a criminal trial “is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue, the evidence which it or he will call, and what questions whether in chief or in cross-examination shall be asked; always, of course, subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility”.’

  3. ‘ Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent requirements.’

 TRANSLATION: Thousands of facts could possibly be raised by either Centrelink or a welfare recipient who is the Respondent in a tort action by Centrelink. Instead of caving in to the fraudulent Robo-debt scam, if a welfare recipient disputes Centrelink’s claim, the same rules that Centrelink applies to welfare recipients, i.e. give us the information that we demand, also applies to welfare recipients, i.e. THE RIGHT OF DISCOVERY.

Politicians and bureaucrats who ignore the constitution and High Court rulings by arbitrarily deciding that welfare recipients are automatically at fault if they cannot prove a Centrelink error within 21 days is a brazenly criminal Abuse of Power that violates sections 142.2 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. Kioa, Hellicar, Bhardwaj, Coco and the SA Supreme Court’s Police v Butcher decisions are facts of law that open the door to a flood-tide of questions that neither Centrelink or the federal parliament want asked in any formal hearing.

Police v Butcher 2014

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASC/2016/130.html

SUGGESTION: Any and all videos of federal politicians and bureaucrats promoting Robo-Debt that you can find on the Internet should be saved to your computer or videoed with your mobile as evidence of systemic fraud by Turnbull Government and previous governments.

 WELFARE RECIPIENTS HAVE THE RIGHT OF DISCOVERY:

Because of the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions, the first piece of information that a welfare recipient can demand on the grounds that it is “credible, relevant and significant”, is the date and findings of a court in determining the primary facts of the matter upon which a Centrelink employee, or the Secretary of the Department of Human Services, based a decision that the welfare recipient was at fault? [As the High Court ruled in Bhardwaj at 51 – 53, “If there is no jurisdiction, in law, there is no decision”.]

The second “credible, relevant and significant” evidentiary fact that Robo-Debt victims can demand was made possible by Assistant Secretary Neil Skill’s letter of 18th May 2010  stating that “Centrelink does not collect post breaching terminal outcome statistics”, i.e. the statistics on the numbers of people who never survived being breached opens the door to asking how many people were murdered by the DHS?

AAAAA14 Centrelink FY2001-02 report

DSS and Centrelink annual reports are big on “Scorecard” savings but are also TOTALLY DEVOID of any reports about the humanitarian consequences caused by those savings. The absence of this data from these reports to parliament makes it quite clear that the bureaucrats responsible for these reports, KNEW what they were hiding from the parliament and the public, i.e. the murder of welfare recipients.

Skill certified

Re: “giving you options” -as in “Do as we say or die?”

suicide stats Emcott vol 3

KIOA v WEST:  As you can read below, in Kioa, the High Court ruled that “…an opportunity should be given to deal with adverse information that is credible, relevant and significant to the decision to be made. It is not sufficient for the repository of the power to endeavour to shut information of that kind out of his mind and to reach a decision without reference to it.”

In Kioa, the information may have been detrimental to Mr & Mrs Kioa. However, in any torts by Centrelink, the answer to that question as to how many welfare recipients died is extremely detrimental to Centrelink because paragraph 51, sub-paragraph xxiiiiA, of the constitution prohibits the linking of welfare payments to “civil conscription”.

These days “civil conscription” is commonly referred to as Work for the Dole.

Since Work for the Dole is unconstitutional, so are the “no show, no pay’ penalties that have been enforced for about 40 years. To again re-state Bhardwaj, ‘in law a decision that has been made without jurisdiction is no decision at all.Every breaching decision ever made was unconstitutional and every victim of this dangerous abuse of power is entitled to compensation. Ditto for every person who has been hit with a demand for repayment of ALLEGED overpayments when there has been no court decision as to the primary facts of the matter when the decision is disputed.

 THE LINACRE LETTER

7-1-16 Redacted Centrelink responseThe Linacre letter  was written by Alice Linacre, the Acting Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS on 7th January 2016. The legal significance of this letter is the fact that DHS management, (aka Centrelink), cannot claim that they did not have knowledge of these points of law and the constitutional constraints on the DHS when attempting to recover ALLEGED overpayments. Since these binding High Court decisions were known by the Acting Chief Legal Counsel in December 2015, ignoring them in misleading letters of Demand constitutes violations of sections 137.2 and  142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995). These are BINDING High Court case law decisions which were/are simply ignored by both the federal government and DHS management. A fortiori scenario as per Bhardwaj at paragraph 52, i.e. if the first or strongest point of law is accurate, then logically, the next point of legal logic is also legally valid.  The High Court’s Kioa v West decision adds further weight to the body of case law decisions that indicate that the Federal parliament has been defrauding welfare recipients for years by exploiting the ignorance of vulnerable victims..

KIOA IN DETAIL – Justice Brennan at Paragraph 38 of Kioa v West:

Kioa

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1985/81.html

In paragraph 38 of his decision, Justice Brennan stated: “Nevertheless in the ordinary case where no problem of confidentiality arises an opportunity should be given to deal with adverse information that is credible, relevant and significant to the decision to be made. It is not sufficient for the repository of the power to endeavour to shut information of that kind out of his mind and to reach a decision without reference to it. Information of that kind creates a real risk of prejudice, albeit subconscious, and it is unfair to deny a person whose interests are likely to be affected by the decision an opportunity to deal with the information. He will be neither consoled nor assured to be told that the prejudicial information was left out of account. The allegation in par.22 was apparently credible, relevant and damaging. The failure to give Mr Kioa an opportunity to deal with it before making an order that Mr and Mrs Kioa be deported left a risk of prejudice which ought to have been removed. There was nothing in the circumstances of the case – neither in the administrative framework created by the Act nor in any need for secrecy or speed in making the decision – which would have made it unreasonable to have given Mr and Mrs Kioa Kioa that opportunity. The failure to give Mr Kioa that opportunity amounts to a non-observance of the principles of natural justice. The result is that the condition governing the power to make the deportation orders was not satisfied and the orders must be set aside. If the Minister chooses to do so, a fresh decision may be made. There is nothing in these reasons which affects the merits of the decision made or of any decision which may be made in the future.”

 Justice Brennan’s last statement above is also important because it was about Due Process of Law’. If the process is wrong, then the decision is wrong and is not legally valid. Once welfare recipients, or the people who represent them in these tort disputes raise Kioa, Hellicar, Bhardwaj, Coco and Butcher and ask for the “Candy Crush Report” and the data on the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll identified in Neil Skill’s letter [C10/1866] and the unreported death toll exposed by the “Letters to the dead fiasco of 2016, the lawyers representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services have too either cough up the information or else, consistent with Justice Brennan’s findings in Kioa, “…the orders must be set aside and, perhaps even worse, a fresh decision may be made.

 The last point of law above is of course totally consistent with Bhardwaj at paragraph 53, which I have bullet-pointed for clarity:

  • 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.

  • Thus, not only is there no legal impediment under the general law to a decision-maker making such a decision but, as a matter of strict legal principle, he or she is required to do so.

  • And that is so, regardless of s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act.

Any and all challenged decisions that have a “pecuniary” implication, e.g. Robo-debt overpayment allegations, “No show, no pay’ allegations or the withdrawal or withholding of a welfare benefit, are matters for a court, not Centrelink.

THE MANNER OF DEATH

Since these points of law are known to the Federal Government, the Chief Legal Advisor for the Department of Human Services and the president of the federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the deliberate ignoring of these case law decisions, which are BINDING on the Federal Parliament [and the AAT], probably constitutes a criminal conspiracy to defraud. If so, then any fatalities that were caused by this alleged criminal activity are either felony murders or manslaughter due to criminal negligence. Whatever the cause of such deaths, THE MANNER OF DEATH, is a felony homicide.

As I point out in  Volume 3 (d)(i) and in other volumes of The Emcott Report, in South Australia even deaths by suicide, are murder. Since this statement was included in the Statement of Facts & Issues that I submitted to the AAT on 21st February 2017, you would not be in violation of Commonwealth, State or territory defamation laws by quoting from this official document. [Did you know that the word “lawyer” does not appear in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (1975)? What does appear, 12 times in either singular or plural form is the word representative. Section 32 of this Act, clearly states that parties in appeals brought before the AAT may be represented by a “representative”.

THE LESSON OF AAT 2016/5334

Since I was authorized to act on behalf of the Applicant in AAT 2016/5334, my official status was “The Representative of the Applicant” and any submissions that I made in regard to AAT 2016/5334 are, in law, legal documents that had to be responded to by “The Representative of the Respondent”, i.e. by Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, the Australian Government Service lawyer representing the Secretary of the DSS.

As a direct consequence of this, you can lawfully quote from any of the submissions that I made to the AAT. This includes the letters that I have already provided to in the Ronald’s space posting, e.g. Ms Linacre’s letter and the Skill Letter.

Ronald Medlicott – Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in abuse of power, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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