Part 48: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity. An email to the Financial Services Royal Commission pointing out why that is only one form of rape that the Redress Commission may have to deal with.

The text below is from an email that I am about to submit to the Financial Service Royal Commission in which I point out, (in ‘just’ 21,812 words), why the Redress Commission’s role in awarding compensation to sexually abused children may have to be expanded to deal with the far larger issues of financial rape by the financial section and Civil Rights Rape by the Federal Parliament.

Note: The shortlink URL for this posting is:

I recommend watching the following 3-minute condensed summary video before entering the ‘jungle’ of case law precedents and other points of law contained below:


ATTN:    Ms. Rowena Orr SC

Counsel assisting the Commissioner

Office of the Financial Services Royal Commission (FSRC).

Via email –


Dear Ms. Orr,


Re: Why the Redress Commission may have to deal with 3 different classes of Rape, i.e. Sexual, Financial and worst of all, the ruthless rapes addressed in this communication.

Since this is a public document it is necessary to be very pedantic and where I consider to be appropriate to so, to repetitively state facts that as an SC you are well-aware of, but which may be unknown to many other readers of this emailed communication.

Paragraph 5 of the Constitution states that “the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and the people.” As people living within the Commonwealth of Australia, we are both bound by valid Commonwealth laws; however, as an Officer-of-the-Court you have an additional level of responsibility that requires that you give earnest consideration to the facts and issues raised in this communication. To fail to do so is to violate your professional responsibilities and thereby risk exposing yourself to a professional misconduct complaint under s. 3.1, 4.1.4 and 5.2 of the Australian Law Society’s Australian Solicitor’s Conduct Rules. For the benefit of other readers, these rules state:

“Fundamental duties of Solicitors”:

Section 3: Paramount duty of the court and the administration of justice

Sub-section 3.1. states, “A solicitor’s duty of the court and the administration of justice is paramount and prevails to the extent of inconsistency with any other duty.”

Sub-section 4, Other fundamental ethical duties

4.1.4 A solicitor must “avoid any compromise to their integrity and professional independence.”

 Sub-section 5, Dishonest and Disreputable Conduct

5.2 “Bring the profession into disrepute.”

As the Counsel assisting the Commissioner in the Financial Services Royal Commission of Inquiry you have professional obligations that cannot be ignored, which includes ascertaining all relevant facts of the matter, which, as crazy as it may sound, is the question of law pertaining to the validity of the inquiry. Before addressing that issue, and other issues, in more detail, I would point out to other readers that under Section 130 of South Australia’s criminal code, this communication is a legal document that contains questions of law under this statute that should not be ignored.

The South Australian Criminal Consolidation Act (1935) contains the following provisions:

Part 5—Offences of dishonesty

Division 1—Preliminary


In this Part—

detriment means—                                                                        

(a)        a detriment of a proprietary nature; or

(b)        a financial disadvantage; or

(c)        loss of an opportunity to gain a benefit; or

(d)        a detriment of a kind that might result from the exercise of a public duty in a particular way;

Clearly the above definition of “detriment” is applicable to issues already uncovered by the FSRC inquiry, e.g. the Commonwealth Bank’s ‘Fee-for-no-service’ practices, and the above definition in section 130 means that where South Australian clients have been ripped-off, criminal violations have occurred that need to be the subject of either a SAPOL investigation or a federal police investigation, or both.

document includes any record of information whether in documentary, magnetic, electronic or other form;

Under the above section 130 definition of a document, this email is a legal document that can lawfully be tendered in evidence in South Australian courts and presumably, also in   commissions of inquiry. It would be most unwise for any representative of the Office of the of the Financial Services Royal Commission to disregard that when appraising the points of law and matters of fact raised in this document, especially the two primary questions of law that need to be immediately addressed by the Financial Services Royal Commission before continuing with the proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry:

  1. Were the 226 Declarations of Results for the 2016 federal election issued by the Australian Electoral Commission in July and August 2016 constitutionally invalid declarations due to defective administration in the conduct of this election by the Australian Electoral Commission? It is a fortiori that if the declarations of results were not valid because the Australian Electoral Commission had exceeded its constitutional authority by conducting a hybrid election in which both eligible and disqualified candidates contested the 2016 election, then, consistent with Bhardwaj at 51 – 53, all downstream decisions are invalid, including the decision to establish the Financial Services Royal Commission of Inquiry.

As has been mentioned previously, paragraph 5 of the Constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and the people. This constitutional provision is applicable to the Financial Services Royal Commission of Inquiry for several reasons, some of which are as follows:

  1. The Terms of reference of the Royal Commission are subject to the Constitution and where there is any conflict, potential or real, the Constitution prevails.
  2. Section 142.2 and Section 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) are constitutionally valid laws that imposes statutory constraints on the way the can FSRC conduct its inquiry. Whilst it may be administratively convenience to only accept information that is submitted via the FSRC on-line web forms, insisting that this is the only way in which information will be accepted may constitute violations of these two provisions of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
  3. In addition to this, there are also the statutory provisions within the Commonwealth Evidence Act regarding the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence that need to be considered, statutory provisions that have implications for the powers, if any, of a royal commission of Inquiry to obstruct justice by engaging in voluntary physical acts of commission that effective limit the presentation of evidence to the inquiry.
  4. Critical to the constitutional validity of the FSRC Inquiry itself is the constitutional validity of the 2016 federal election.
  5. Quite clearly, if the 2016 federal election was not constitutionally valid, then in law, no decisions made by the 45th Parliament are legally valid, including the establishment of the Financial Services Royal Commission.
  6. As per Section 77 of the Australian Electoral Act (1917), which is set out below, the constitutional validity of the 2016 federal election is a matter for the High Court to determine:

Section 77: Decisions under Partfinal etc.

(1)  Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, but subject to the Constitution and to section 39B and Part VII of the Judiciary Act 1903, a decision by the Electoral Commissioner, the Electoral Commission, a Redistribution Committee for a State or the Australian Capital Territory, an augmented Electoral Commission for a State or the Australian Capital Territory or the Redistribution Commissioners for a State or the Australian Capital Territory made, or purporting to be made, under this Part(whether in the exercise of a discretion or not):

                     (a)  is final and conclusive;

                     (b)  shall not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed, set aside or called in question in any court or tribunal on any ground; and

                     (c)  is not subject to mandamus, prohibition, certiorari or injunction, or the making of a declaratory or other order, in any court on any ground.

As is set out in 77 (1) of the Australian Electoral Act, the validity of the declarations of the results of a federal election can only be impeached on limited grounds, e.g.  a violation of the Constitution. 

Section 360, Powers of Court, specifies the powers of the High Court to rule on the validity of Declarations of results issued by the Australian Electoral Commission:

(1)  The Court of Disputed Returns shall sit as an open Court and its powers shall include the following:

(i)  To adjourn;

(ii)  To compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents;

(iii)  To grant to any party to a petition leave to inspect in the presence of a prescribed officer the rolls and other documents (except ballot papers) used at or in connexion with any election and to take, in the presence of the prescribed officer, extracts from those rolls and documents;

(iv)  To examine witnesses on oath;

(v)  To declare that any person who was returned as elected was not duly elected;

(vi)  To declare any candidate duly elected who was not returned as elected;

(vii)  To declare any election absolutely void;

Note that at 360 (1) (vii) the High Court has the power to declare an election absolutely void and it is my contention that until the Financial Services Royal Commission seeks a ruling from the High Court as whether-or-not the results of the 2016 federal election are valid, the legitimacy of the proceedings of the Financial Services Royal Commission of Inquiry are subject to impeachment by any person who may be adversely affected by any findings of the Commission of Inquiry.

Given that breaches of South Australia’s criminal code may have occurred with the ‘Fee-for-no-service’ scam, prosecutions are likely. However, if the FSRC Inquiry had no legally valid jurisdiction due to a constitutionally invalid election, then prosecutions will not be possible.

The potential flow-on ramifications are profound as the current prosecutions of Cardinal Pell and Archbishop Wilson rely on evidence from the Royal Commission into the Sexual Abuse of Children in Institutionalized Care (RCISACIIC). If the 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016 are constitutionally invalid, then, in law, all legislation and executive decisions made by these parliaments are invalid, including the RCISACIIC findings.

As Judge Ian L. Lake, the Victorian Coroner stated in his October 2014 letter, I am raising issues of national and international significance and the possibility that the legal basis for the evidence underpinning the prosecution of these two clerics is groundless certainly fits in that category. On a local basis, two teenagers facing prosecution for allegedly plotting a terrorist attack in the South Australian Riverland region may also be undermined if alleged violations of federal anti-terrorism laws collapse because the laws are the statutory fiction creations of unconstitutionally elected hybrid parliaments.

Whilst federal politicians may complain about the inconvenience this may cause, if the resignation of Rebekha Sharkie is a typical example, it is a problem that these people have been responsible for creating themselves.

The Sharkie Confession

On the 9th May 2018, shortly after the High Court’s decision in the High Court announced its decision in the case of former Senator Katy Gallagher, the Member for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie, announced that she would resign from the Federal Parliament.  Details of her media announcement can be read at

Please note the following statements at that website:

 “No matter that I put my application in before the election was even called, no matter that my documents came back before the election was held, the High Court ruling for Gallagher is quite clear,” (she said.) “Consequently I will resign from the Australian Parliament today and seek re-election at the forthcoming by-election.”

What may be adduced from the above statements by Ms. Sharkie is that she has made a tacit confession that she knew that she was not eligible to be nominated as a candidate for the Division of Mayo at the time that her nomination was lodged with the Australian Electoral Commission. Clearly, a Federal Police investigation is required to determine if any federal law, e.g. Section 135 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), was violated by Ms. Sharkie, and also possibly by other elected disqualified candidates.  It should be noted that on 3rd November 2017, Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull held a media conference during which he attempted to rebut claims that Josh Fydenberg was not eligible to be a member of the Federal Parliament because he held dual citizenship.

Malcom Turnbull’s “Witch hunt” speech

In an emotion-charged speech that omitted crucial facts of the matter, Mr. Turnbull pointed that when Josh Fydenberg’s mother, Erica Strauss, arrived in Australia, she was a stateless person because, during World War II, the Fascist government in Hungary had deprived Jewish people of citizenship rights. Whilst that statement was historically correct, by what may have been a deliberate voluntary physical act of omission that was intended to exploit public ignorance of the true facts of the matter, Mr. Turnbull omitted to mention that in 2011 the Constitution of Hungary was changed, and the citizenship rights of Jewish people and their children were restored. Despite the passionately presented argument by Prime Minister Turnbull, it is possible that Josh Fydenberg may have held dual citizenship during the 2013 and 2016 federal elections. According to information on the previously mentioned website, Josh Fydenberg had ‘hired a consultant’ to determine if he held dual citizen and The Australian.

The webpage contains the following statement:

He had sought advice and was “very confident in my position, that I am an Australian citizen and an Australian citizen only”.

The determination of Josh Fydenberg’s citizenship status at the time that he nominated for the 2013 and 2016 federal elections is a matter for the High Court, not Prime Minister Turnbull, or even by Josh Fydenberg, who should have followed advice given out by the Australian Electoral Commission and immediately sought qualified legal advice once the Gillard Government, through the Department of Foreign Affairs, or the Australian Ambassador to the United Nations,  was made aware of the change in the Hungarian Constitution; a change that had dual-citizenship implications that may have invalidated Josh Fydenberg’s right to remain a Member of the Australian Federal Parliament at that time.

The Turnbull Directive & the Slipper Prosecution.

On the 16th May 2018, Channel 9’s  6.00PM news broadcast contained a news segment recorded in Tasmania that featured Prime Minister Turnbull’s comments on the Dual-Citizenship crisis. During the Channel 9 commentary in this segment it was stated that one member of the Turnbull Government had been born in Papua-New Guinea and had yet to resolve their citizenship status. This comment was followed by a video clip in which Prime Minister Turnbull stated that he wanted people to’ sort out their dual-citizenship problems “before the next election.’

That was a directive from Prime Minister Turnbull that acknowledged a now obvious matter of fact that 1 in 20 of the candidates who had contested the 2016 federal election and were successful in filling parliamentary vacancies, were not eligible to do so! Consequently, there are very serious questions of pertaining to possible violations of federal criminal statutes by people who either knew, or alternately, ought to have known, that they were disqualified from contesting a vacancy in the 2016 federal election and would therefore have to falsely claim eligibility in order to be registered as a candidate.

One of the flow-on consequences of the prosecution of a former Speaker, Peter Slipper, is an urgent need for a Federal Police investigation into the eligibility of all persons who were nominated in the 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016 federal elections to determine precisely how many of these people were violating section 135 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) or other federal laws when nominated. Peter Slipper, was prosecuted and initially convicted on three counts of violating s135.1 (5) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.

The charges against Peter Slipper alleged:

“That in the Australian Capital Territory he dishonestly caused a risk of loss to a person, namely the Department of Finance and Deregulation, which is a Commonwealth entity, knowing or believing that there was a substantial risk of the loss occurring.”

  1. 20 January 2010 (CC13/40001);
  2. 12 April 2010 (CC13/40002);
  3. 27 June 2010 (CC13/40003).

In September 2014, at a sentencing hearing in the ACT Magistrates court, the Crown Prosecutor was not inclined to show leniency towards Peter Slipper because of his lack of contrition in allegedly defrauding the Commonwealth:

 “Peter Slipper committed a fraud and has shown no contrition”.

The prosecutor then asked the court to impose a tough sentence. However, on 26th February 2015, the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory handed down its decision regarding Peter Slipper’s appeal of his conviction.[1]

His Honour, Justice Burns, decided that:

The appeals are upheld and the convictions and penalties imposed by the Magistrate are set aside. Verdicts of not guilty are substituted with respect to each charge[2].

Peter Slipper’s fraud conviction was overturned, the charges were dismissed, and his criminal record wiped out, i.e. “expunged from the record”.

The prosecution of Peter Slipper for 10 counts of alleged Cab Charge fraud involving an alleged amount of $954 is, in dollar terms, insignificant when compared to the amounts paid to disqualified people who members of the Federal Parliament for periods exceeding 12-years, e.g. Barnaby Joyce, who as the Deputy Prime Minister was paid some $400,000 in the FY 2015 -16 financial in salary and electorate allowances.  To suggest that these expenditures should not be repaid because these costs would have had to be paid ‘to someone’ is spurious as the basic point of law is that Barnaby Joyce received taxpayer funded Commonwealth payments that the constitutionally valid candidate, Tony Windsor, was entitled to receive but did not receive.

In 2016, the election of Barnaby Joyce to fill the vacancy in the electoral division of New England prevented the runner-up eligible candidate, Anthony Windsor, from filling the Division of New England vacancy. The fact of the matter is that ineligible candidates who fill vacancies cause serious economic harm to the eligible runner-up candidates. Disqualified candidates are not entitled to the taxpayer funded monies paid to Members of Parliament and any monies received must be repaid. Section 10A of the Parliamentary Entitlements Act, requires court action to recover taxpayer funded entitlements that Mr. Joyce, and all other disqualified candidates were not entitled to receive. Given the long-time frames involved, this may total millions of dollars that some people may not be able to repay, and which could therefore result in disqualified persons being declared bankrupt; an eventuality that would again result in people who have been re-elected again being dismissed from the Federal Parliament by the High court. Questions of law to be considered at this time are exactly how much taxpayers’ money is the Turnbull Government not seeking to recover from disqualified politicians and why is Malcolm Turnbull not complying with paragraph 5 of the Constitution by enforcing Article 10A of the Entitlements Act?

The Constitution is binding on everyone, including both Malcolm Turnbull and every person involved in the FSRC Inquiry. If a parliament is constitutionally elected, then senate suppression orders are legally valid orders that cannot be ignored by a Royal Commission.

3 Senate Suppression Orders

If accepted without any consideration of the complex issues involved, the following statement appears to be a reason request. However, what makes it unreasonable is that it violated senate suppression orders that may possibly be valid. (Or not valid.)


“To assist the Commission, we request that you make your submission and provide your comments using the online form. The form also allows you to provide other comments including your views on what changes the Royal Commission should consider.”

From an ill-informed ‘top down’ perspective, the above statement may appear to be quite reasonable and yet, in law, it may be an incitement to violate senate suppression orders.

I am the author of 3 submissions to Senate inquires and now have the dubious distinction of being the recipient of 3 Senate ‘do not copy, do not distribute’ orders that are effectively Senate issued parliamentary privilege suppression orders. One example of this is Submission 287 to the November 2005 Senate inquiry into the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 legislation.

Listed on the Legal & Constitutional Affairs inquiries website as “Not yet available”, this submission is officially classified as “confidential” because it addressed the issue of the unreported death toll caused by recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional welfare penalties, i.e. the “terrible human consequences” alluded to by Senator Brandis on 20th February 2017 during an ABC broadcast of the #QandA program.  If I decide to violate these suppression orders by providing physical evidence to the inquiry, that is my decision and I am solely accountable for my actions in doing so. However, if I comply with the FSRC instruction, I am following instructions issued by the Office of the Financial Services Royal Commission and if I post text from these classified submissions on the FSRC website, in law, this unwittingly makes the Commission an accessory to the violation of these suppression orders.

3 Fairness Questions of Law

In addition to the issue of unintentional incitement to violate senate suppression orders, there are also  questions of law concerning the conduct of the Office of the Financial Services Royal Commission in refusing to accept physical evidence that I wish to present to the inquiry, i.e. this refusal to accept physical evidence constitute both violations of statute law and a procedural fairness violation that may, in an appeal against the findings of the FSRC Inquiry invalidate some or even all FSRC findings?

This is a question of law that is relevant to individuals who may in anyway be affected by the findings of the inquiry. Given that some people are implicated in what may be unlawful conduct could face criminal sanctions and some corporate entities, e.g. the Commonwealth Bank, may have to respond to tort actions that involve hundreds of millions of dollars of investors funds, it is a question of law that potentially has extremely profound implications in both civil and criminal law sanctions and in tort actions initiated by who have been harmed by the apparently unscrupulous and possibly illegal actions of individuals and financial corporations, e.g. the people responsible for the “Fee-for-no-service” scam..

The statement “… we request that you make your submission and provide your comments using the online form’ .may reflect administrative convenience for the Office of the FSRC is also inconsistent with a number of binding High Court decisions that have the potential to invalidate the Commission’s activities and findings as per the previously mentioned decision by Justice Moynihan in Keating v Morris & Ors; Leck v Morris & Ors QSC 243 (1 September 2005) that shut down the Morris Inquiry and turned 50 days of testimony into ‘Fruit of the Poisonous Tree’. Whilst Commonwealth Bank officials and shareholders may find that acceptable, the victims of the “Fee-for-no-service” scam would not appreciate the undermining of efforts to seek compensation in the courts.

The High Court’s Bhardwaj decision, i.e. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj, HCA 11 (14th March 2002) is the proverbial “Elephant in the room” as paragraphs 51 – 53 calls into question the legitimacy and validity of the FSRC inquiry. There is a substantial body of evidence in the form of a series of High Court decisions since February 2017 make it very evident that the 2016 federal election was not conducted in a constitutionally valid. Applying the Bhardwaj precedent that if there is no jurisdiction then, in law, there is no valid decisions and the decision remains to be made, i.e. a legally valid declaration of results for the 2016 election has yet to be made. Therefore, all legislation and executive decisions by the 45th Parliament are also, in law, no decision at all, i.e. they are all legally invalid. Since this is a public email, the Court’s ruling at 51 – 53 of Bhardwaj is provided for members of the public to consider. Please note that case law citations have been removed from this text for reading clarity:

 Decisions involving jurisdictional error: the general law

  1. There is, in our view, no reason in principle why the general law should treat administrative decisions involving jurisdictional error as binding or having legal effect unless and until set aside. A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all. 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. A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.

 The view that a decision involving jurisdictional error does not prevent the decision-maker from correcting that error by making a later decision has been accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada. Thus, in Chandler v Alberta Association of Architects, Sopinka J, with whom Dickson CJ and Wilson J concurred, said:

 “As a general rule, once [an administrative] tribunal has reached a final decision in respect to the matter that is before it in accordance with its enabling statute, that decision cannot be revisited because the tribunal has changed its mind, made an error within jurisdiction or because there has been a change of circumstances …

To this extent, the principle of functus officio applies. It is based, however, on the policy ground which favours finality of proceedings rather than the rule which was developed with respect to formal judgments of a court whose decision was subject to a full appeal. For this reason I am of the opinion that its application must be more flexible and less formalistic in respect to the decisions of administrative tribunals which are subject to appeal only on a point of law.”

 In the same case, his Lordship cited with approval a statement by McLachlin J that:

“as a matter of logic and on the authorities … a tribunal which makes a decision in the purported exercise of its power which is a nullity, may thereafter enter upon a proper hearing and render a valid decision”.

  In our view, logic and legal principle both direct the conclusion that the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada is correct. 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.

 Take note of the following extracts from these findings:

[At 51] “A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all.”

[At 51] “A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.”

[At 53 “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.”

[At 53] “… 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.”

In these findings, Justice Gaudron and Justice Gummow held that decisions that involve jurisdictional error are, in law, no decision at all. This is especially so, i.e. “a fortiori”, when the jurisdictional error involves exceeding a constitutional power or infringing a constitutional prohibition.

Note: Only the High Court can nullify constitutionally invalid declarations of results, a fact reflected in the nullification of the Declarations of Results in the elections of numerous members of the Federal Parliament due to section 44 of the Constitution, which disqualifies people who have criminal convictions, are bankrupt, hold dual citizenship or are already a Commonwealth employee from serving in the Federal Parliament. The section 44 prohibition means that the Australian Electoral Commission could not, and should not, have accepted nominations from disqualified persons. There is no jurisdiction to conduct ‘hybrid’ federal elections in which ballot papers containing the names of both eligible candidates and disqualified candidates were submitted to electors. Hybrid elections have apparently been occurring for an extended period because of the failure of the Australian Electoral Commission to verify candidate eligibility before publishing the names of nominated candidates.

The defective conduct of hybrid elections includes:

 Printing and distribution of ballot papers with the names of disqualified people, e.g. Barnaby Joyce, Rebekha Sharkie, Josh Wilson, Susan Lamb and Justine Keay.

  1. Conducting a postal vote using ballot papers naming disqualified candidates.
  2. Operating pre-election voting centres and collecting ballot papers with the names of disqualified candidates and eligible candidates not clearly specified.
  3. Conducting a ballot count after the election officially closed at 6.00 pm local time on 2nd July 2016 and counting of votes of disqualified candidates, e.g. Rod Culleton, Robert Day, John Alexander, Barnaby Joyce, Rebekha Sharkie, Josh Wilson, Susan Lamb and Justine Keay.
  4. Distribution of preference votes whilst not knowing the eligibility of each candidate to who votes were being distributed.
  5. Allowing scrutineers to monitor the count whilst not knowing which candidates were not eligible to stand.
  6. Declaration of ballot results whilst not knowing which candidates were eligible to stand and which were not eligible to stand
  7. Accepting invalid ballots cast by some 15 million voters who also did not know which candidates were not eligible to contest the election.

 Void ab initio

It is manifestly obvious that the Australian Electoral Commission had no jurisdiction to hold an election in which the eligibility of 1,625 candidates was unknown, and the participating Electors had no legal right to vote for disqualified candidates. Therefore, consistent with Bhardwaj, since there was no valid decision made as to who has filled the 226 vacancies for the 2016. Election, the Australian Electoral Commission’s Declarations of Results made by for all 150 House of Representatives vacancies and the Declarations of Results for the 76 Senate vacancies are, in law, no decision at all. The correct decision for the High Court in regard to all 226 declarations of results is that they are all void ab initio because of defective administration by the Australian Electoral Commission.

Ignoring the Bhardwaj precedent, a valid point of law that calls into question the validity of the FSRC inquiry, is not an option for any legal actions based on legislation enacted since the 2004 federal election. To proceed with any inquiry or prosecution without seeking clarification on the validity of doing so is to risk invalidating the entire process.

In 2005, Darren Keating and Peter Leck were successful in shutting down the Morris Inquiry because they were successfully able to argue in the Queensland Supreme Court that they were the victims of manifest ostensible bias. Another precedent that could invalidate the finding of the FSRC inquiry is ASIC v Hellicar & Ors; HCA 17 (3rd May 2012), an appeal that is has direct relevance to the on-going boardroom impacts of the FSRC inquiry.

With corporate executives and directors being compelled to resign or stand down, and with the potential for criminal prosecutions, Hellicar is a ‘Millionaires’ row’ determination that is likely to closely studies for precedents that could invalidate some of the FSRC findings.

At 141 – 143 the Court ruled:

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.

[142] 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”. 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”. Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent requirements.

[143] Second, the proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory agency relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require the regulatory agency to make some final judgment about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.

A general observation re Hellicar and Robo-Debt:

What the Court was making quite clear in this determination was the fact of law that whilst regulators may be responsible for upholding and implementing the law, if their decision is challenged, then the determination of the facts is a matter for a court, not the regulator. It is this binding precedent and the previously mentioned Bhardwaj precedent that the Turnbull Government has been deliberately ignoring at the reported rate of 20,000 times per week with “mistakes” randomly resulting in what Senator Brandis described as the “terrible human consequences”, i.e. systemic error triggered fatalities.

Section 257 (1) of the South Australian Criminal Code is a statute that deals with the crime of criminal defamation. As can be seen from the text below, if my claims that statistical data indicates that the number of deaths caused by unconstitutional, recklessly dangerous violations constitutional rights, common law rights and human rights are deliberately misleading, then I face prosecution and a jail term of 3 years. However, if my concerns are valid and are ignored by public officials who have a clear duty under section 256 of this Act to give diligent consideration to those claims, then these public officials face Obstruction of Justice charges concerning what I personally believe constitutes the worst cases of mass fraud and serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Section 257 states:

(1) A person who, without lawful excuse, publishes defamatory matter concerning another living person—  (a) knowing the matter to be false or being recklessly indifferent as to whether the matter is true or false; and  (b) intending to cause serious harm, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether the publication of the defamatory matter will cause serious harm, to a person (whether the person defamed or not), is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

It is my (lawful) contention that every tortious conduct triggered death caused by Commonwealth tortious conduct “mistakes” are, at the very least, violations of State and Territory occupational health and safety laws such as Section 31 of the South Australian Work, Health & Safety Act (2012) and Section 21 of the Western Australian Occupational Safety & Health Act (1984).

Recently, the South Australian Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, Bruce Lander QC, announced that he would conduct an inquiry into the deaths of two workers at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital worksite. A document that I wish to submit to the FSRC inquiry is a copy of a statutory declaration that I intend to submit to Commissioner Lander as I shall be demanding an ICAC investigation into one of the officially irrelevant Robo-Debt fatalities that has occurred in South Australia. In addition, I shall also submit this statutory declaration to the South Australian Police Commissioner, Grant Stevens, and to the Chief Legal Counsels for the Commonwealth Bank and the AMP as this document may be useful in mounting apprehend bias rebuttals if criminal charges are files against these organizations.

The prosecutions of those responsible for the death of Ian Ward in Western Australian in January 2008 and the death of Josh Park-Fing in Queensland in April 2016 will be cited as precedents for an ICAC inquiry and a SAPOL investigation into the unreported, classified, officially “irrelevant” Robo-Debt fatalities that have occurred in South Australia. It is a matter of fact that in February 2017, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services had the opportunity to dispute the claim that the unreported, classified death toll may close to or exceed 100,000. Instead, the Secretary rescinded a March 2016 decision and re-instated a disability pension that had been cancelled. Since the South Australian population is 7% of the national population, on a pro rata basis, a death toll of approximately 100,000 implies a potential “mistakes” toll over the last 40 years in South Australia of approximately 7,000.

 Whatever either national or the South Australian death toll may be, even one “terrible human consequence” has been one too many. That legal and humanitarian logic also applies to any fatalities that may have been precipitated by the unethical or unlawful conduct now being exposed by the FSRC inquiry. At the very least, any fatalities uncovered by the FSRC inquiry will, like the DHS deaths, be violations of health and safety laws and they may also be violations of culpable homicide laws. Case law decisions that may enable those most directly responsible for such fatalities to mitigate or even totally avoid accountability for their actions therefore need to be factored into the issues being considered by the FSRC.

 Hellicar and a serious procedural error of law by the FSRC:

Like a massive nuclear powered Russian icebreaker ploughs through icepacks, the Australian High Court is ploughing through the 226-Declarations-of-Results for the 2016 federal election. In a very similar manner, the FSRC inquiry has also been ‘ploughing through corporate boardrooms’ in the finance sector. It is possible that some of the people whose careers or reputations have been damaged by the FSRC inquiry may seek to invalidate the Inquiry’s findings by following the example of the Board of Management of James Hardie in challenging an ASIC decision in the High Court. The  3rd May 2012 Hellicar decision is therefore a precedent that needs to be considered carefully. The FSRC response to my request for a mailing address to which I can post physical evidence was a grossly inadequate procedural response that may have unintended consequences for the FSRC inquiry:

From a ‘top down,’ narrow-minded-administrative-convenience-perspective, filling in a webpage form may appear to be an adequate means of sourcing information. However, from my perspective. As I am sure that you are now aware, I consider that this method of sourcing information to be an administrative solution that constitutes a serious violation of my legal right to submit credible, relevant information/evidence to the FSRC Inquiry.

It may be pedantic, but I draw your attention to the following points of law in paragraph 142 that I have intentionally bullet-pointed for ease of comprehension:

  1. Each side in a criminal trial “is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue,
  2. the evidence which it or he will call,
  3. and what questions whether in chief or in cross-examination shall be asked;
  4. always, of course, subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility”.
  5. Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent requirements.

Note that in both criminal and civil proceedings, “Each side… is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue and the evidence which it or he will call.”  A royal commission of inquiry is a civil proceeding and members of the public have the right to submit whatever evidence they believe is credible, relevant and of significance to the proceedings of the commission of inquiry. Subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility, the right to make submissions to a public inquiry includes the freedom to decide the most appropriate way to present information or evidence to a public inquiry. Common sense, rather than a Doctorate of Justice, is all that is required to appreciate that if a person wishes to exercise their freedom to present physical evidence of their choice, then procedural fairness includes the appropriate means to do so is part of the inquiry process.

The unintended role of the HIP Inquiry in the death of Josh Park-Fing.

To restrict the way in which evidence is presented to a public inquiry is a significant violation of procedural fairness that can have totally unintended consequences; sometimes of the very consequence that an inquiry was established with the specific intention of preventing re-occurrences. Incredibly, this happened with the HIP Inquiry.

On 1st April 2014 and again on 24th April 2014, Jessica Robinson, General Counsel to the HIP Inquiry, declined to accept submissions from me. Since the Terms of Reference for the HIP inquiry related to events that had occurred within a specified time frame, Ms. Robinson declined to accept information that occurred outside that time frame. Ironically, during the HIP inquiry Commissioner Hanger took a very close look at the ‘big picture’, i.e. the events that precipitated the HIP disaster and in doing so, reviewed the long-term process that resulted in the HIP disaster. As was clearly indicated by Commissioner Hanger’s statement that senior public servants should read the works of Edward De Bono, a broad view of issues that may require lateral thinking that is ‘outside the box,’ e.g. outside the precise Terms of Reference, may be necessary to fully grasp the complex gestalt of the issue under review.

Tragically, Jessica Robinson failed to comprehend that the four HIP fatalities were part of a far larger, still ongoing series of “terrible human consequences” and as a result, in April 2016, 18-year-old Josh Park Fing died. His death is just one of several totally preventable fatalities that I believe need to be reclassified as culpable homicides.

I also believe that any court would agree that the ubiquitous availability of the Internet may be extremely convenient, but it is not valid justification for the total abandonment of tradition techniques for the presentation of evidence to a court or a commission of inquiry.

At 147 in Hellicar, the High Court ruled:

  1. It may readily be accepted that courts and litigants rightly expect that ASIC will conduct any litigation in which it is engaged fairly.
  2. Nothing that is said in these reasons should be taken as denying that ASIC should do so.
  3. But the Court of Appeal concluded that ASIC was under a duty in this litigation to call particular evidence and that breach of the duty by not calling the evidence required the discounting of whatever evidence ASIC did call in proof of its case.
  4. Neither the source of a duty of that kind, nor the source of the rule which was said to apply if that duty were breached, was sufficiently identified by the Court of Appeal or in argument in this Court.

Procedural fairness is not an optional extra; it is a fundamental principle in any legal hearing and any person may seek to invalidate or impeach the findings of a court or a commission of inquiry on the grounds of a violations of procedural fairness principles. In Hellicar at 147, the High Court recognized this a procedural fairness right but emphasizing the necessity of being specific when claiming possible violations. Consistent with that legal logic, I repeat, whilst the FSRC may find it convenient to only accept submissions lodged using a pre-set web form, this is clearly a serious violation of my procedural fairness rights to be able to “decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue.”  

The FSRC insistence upon the use of or the ‘approved’ web pages is a denial of the right to “decide the ground”, a phrase that refers to both the evidence to be submitted and the way it is submitted for consideration. Whilst the web page method may be convenient for the administration of the FSRC inquiry, reasonable grounds exist for appeals to the courts that it is a most unreasonable way to conduct an inquiry into matters of grave national concern that affect the welfare of literally millions of people and which may involve billions of dollars of private investments and savings.

My layman’s understanding of Hellicar at 142 is that any person with a vested interest can decide what may be appropriate evidence or information that is of significance to their personal situation and then, consistent with Justice Brennan’s determination at paragraph 38 of his findings in Kioa v West; HCA 81 on 18 December 1985, exercise the right to either seek out information from a party to a dispute or determine what is appropriate to submit for consideration and how that information will be submitted. You may not want the information that I wish to provide but you cannot prevent it from being submitted.

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.

You have got to be kidding! – A compromised communications process.

Upon reading your statement “To assist the Commission, we request that you make your submission and provide your comments using the online form. The form also allows you to provide other comments including your views on what changes the Royal Commission should consider” my initial response was “you have got to be kidding!”  These days, no rational, sane person who is technology-aware would claim that the Internet is a secure environment for the transmission of what may prove to be extremely sensitive financial information. Recently, whilst surfing the internet with my Hewlett-Packard (HP) netbook, I received a ‘pop-up’ warning from Hewlett-Packard that contained the following warning:

Last updated : 11-May-2018

Potential Security Impact:

Elevation of Privilege/Information Disclosure

Source: HP, HP Product Security Response Team (PSRT)

Reported by: Google Project Zero

Source: HP, HP Product Security Response Team (PSRT)


A vulnerability has been disclosed with modern CPU architecture referred to as side-channel analysis or speculative execution. Researchers have nicknamed the vulnerabilities “Spectre” and “Meltdown”. The result of exploits could potentially lead to loss of sensitive information.

  • Intel has been working with HP (and its other OEMs) to address these serious microprocessor vulnerabilities. Intel provided updates that HP tested and released in this security bulletin.
  • There were reports the updates from Intel were creating instances of unpredictable system behavior once implemented and Intel recommended OEMs stop deployment.
  • HP continues to work with Intel on updates with new versions available starting February 7 per guidance from Intel’s Security Issue Update.
  • More information is available from Intel per their Security Advisory:
  • HP has been working with AMD for microcode updates and will make them available as they are released from AMD and validated by HP.

HP is working closely with our partners, and updates will be made as soon as possible. Check this Security Bulletin frequently for updates.

Major information technology industry organizations such as Intel, AMD, Microsoft and major 1st tier computer manufacturers such as Hewlett-Packard are gravely concerned about ‘side channel analysis’ vulnerabilities posed by ‘Spectre’ and ‘Meltdown’. I strongly recommend that you take careful consider this statement in the HP warning:

 The result of exploits could potentially lead to loss of sensitive information.

The vulnerabilities posed by ‘Spectre’ and ‘Meltdown’ are just one example of how vulnerable the Internet is as a means of communication, especially when transmitting financial information via a Wi-Fi connection. If you have access to a laptop or table with a Wi-Fi card, click on the Wi-Fi and note how many Wi-Fi connections are available.

  1. Many may be listed as ‘Secured’, a very misleading term as it implies a password protected data encryption system is being to prevent unauthorized access to data or unauthorized entry to the network.
  2. Many older Wi-Fi systems using base-station ADSL or ADSL 2 router/modems were sold with factory pre-set passwords that many users, not being network aware, leave at the default setting. The problem with this is that if you ‘Google’ the modem manufacturer, it is possible to locate these factory default passwords on the Internet and gain entry to these supposedly ‘secure’ systems.
  3. The default encryption setting on many wireless routers, even relatively new ADSL 2+ ‘n’ models is a useless encryption system, i.e.  WEP (Wireless Encryption Protocol), that is totally compromised because the encryption keys are known to many professional hackers.
  4. Many people use a Wi-Fi dongle wireless ‘mouse’ setup to manipulate the cursor or perform commands. This is the ultimate in compromised systems as there is no password protection on cheaper dongles that can reportedly be accessed remotely with newer technology from as far away as 400 metres from the host computer.
  5. Text-based evidence submitted by the internet may be stored off-line by Internet Service Providers where is it vulnerable to casual scrutiny by ISP employees, illegal on-line hacking, and even court initiated legal actions such as an Anton Pilar search order.
  6. Web pages are also not a secure medium for submitting legal information; they are vulnerable to both screen-capture technology and keystroke logging by hackers or other persons with malicious intent.

Implicit in your statement to me “To assist the Commission, we request that you make your submission and provide your comments using the online form” is the assumption that everyone who may wish to make a submission to the inquiry has access to the Internet. This is the well-known assumption masquerading as fact.

  1. According to information provided to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, the Department of Human Services has Centrelink has approximately 34,000 computers.
  2. Thousands of these computers are located in Centrelink customer service centres where hundreds of thousands of people use these systems to report income or meet other compliance obligations.
  3. The assumption that “everyone’ access to the Internet is a fallacy that the appears to have been overlooked by those responsible for enabling ordinary people to submit information to the inquiry.
  4. “Australian priority investment Approach to Welfare – Overview” is a public information fact sheet that, as of June 30 2015, was available from
  5. Under the sub-heading “What have we learnt so far?” are the two following statements: [Note: Bullet-pointed here for emphasis.]
  • More than one third of Australia’s population receive welfare payments.
  • Around 10 per cent of Australians not currently receiving payments are expected to start receiving welfare over the next five years.

What these statements indicate is that a very substantial section of Australian society has low incomes or else survive totally on a welfare benefit. Most have bank accounts and those who have been in the workforce since compulsory superannuation was first introduced also have superannuation investments. There is a large section of the national community that may have a vested interest in making submissions to the inquiry who may lack the technical resources, i.e. computers, and therefore cannot submit information via the Internet.

“See something, hear something, say something” v. Fill-in-the-form.

A few years ago, the South Australian Police ran a mass media campaign highlighting the outstanding success of SAPOL’s “See something, hear something, say something” advertising campaign. Since this ‘Crime Stoppers’ initiative was first introduced, over 20,000 crimes have been solved, empirical evidence of the effectiveness of the free-call hotline’s usefulness in fighting crime. Quite clearly, the ability of members of the community to pick up the phone, make a call and report on possible criminal activity is highly effective. Hypothetically, if I was an unscrupulous corporate ‘fixer’ tasked with damage control by nobbling the FSRC Inquiry, the very last thing that I would want to see would be a free-call hotline that could provide the FSRC Inquiry with information that could open-up very damaging lines of inquiry into issues that could be exceedingly damaging to my employer(s). Since the inquiry is a public inquiry, restricting public involvement by ensuring that a people-free, text based online contact system was the sole means of making initial contact with the Inquiry would be an extremely high priority. Whatever the cost involved to do so, I would justify to my employer(s) by pointing out the following demographic facts.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics report 4228.0, Adult Literacy and Life Skills, Summary Results, was re-issued on January 9th 2008. This report revealed that 46.4% of people in the age range of 15 – 70 years of age, i.e. working aged people, were functionally illiterate. On 19th May 2018, ABS statistics for the month of April 2018 indicated that functional illiteracy in Australia had declined slightly to the 1996 level of 44%. The significance of these statistics is that more than 2 in 5 people who could provide the FSRC inquiry with credible, relevant information are functionally illiterate and therefore are unlikely to make a text based submission to the inquiry. With the scope of the FSRC inquiry covering millions of people in the 15 – 70 age range covered by the ABS surveys, the request that functionally illiterate people ‘fill-in-the-form’ is an incredibly counter-productive action. A registered teacher with over 45-years of experience, including working as a literacy tutor for a federal government agency, I am aware of research that reveals that functionally illiterate people may go to extraordinary lengths to conceal their functional literacy problems. One of the easiest ways to conceal a person can hide functional illiteracy problem is to simply avoid filling in forms.

With millions of people possibly affected by the unscrupulous conduct identified by the FSRC Inquiry, and given that Australia’s high levels of functional illiteracy are well-researched and the data is readily available on the Internet, it is not unreasonable that consideration be given to the possibility that the use of a web based text input was/is in fact intended to actively discourage a significant sector of the community from providing information to the inquiry for the express purpose of avoiding the problem of information overload. The ‘fill-in-the-form’ approach to information gathering is a very ineffective means of achieving this goal, especially with Tasmania reportedly recording a 50% functional illiteracy level in a 2013 survey. The practical consequence of the text only approach to information gathering is the use of a social exclusion process that has the potential to isolate and shut out 40- 50% of people across the nation from providing information.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics maintains extensive socio-economic indexes that make it quite clear that there are substantial barriers to social inclusion and this data is a valuable resource for a broad-based review of social exclusion factors that are barriers to participation in nationally important events such as the FSRC inquiry. The following URL is a useful entry point to this data, which I would point out should have been considered when determining the most appropriate means to ensure ease of access by members of the public who may wish to submit information/evidence to the inquiry:

A precedent that also has potentially profound implications for the inquiry that needs to be given serious consideration is the ‘nolle contendere’ response to a point of law relating to data entry that was raised in the statement of facts and issues in the 2nd appeal for Havaunes and the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, (AAT 2016/5334), submitted to the AAT on 21st February 2017. The minimum data entry level for keyboard proficiency is defined by Australian Standard 2708, which sets the baseline level of proficiency at 35 words per minute at 98% accuracy. It is not unreasonable to contemplate the possibility that any data submitted by a person without this minimum level of proficiency might be challenged as being unreliable evidence in a court hearing.

With the possibility that civil or criminal sanctions may arise from the FSRC inquiry, especially where fraudulent conduct may have resulted in culpable homicides, the reliance upon evidence submitted over the Internet by people who do not have any certified keyboard skills is a serious error of law that can be utilized by astute defence counselors to have this unreliable evidence ruled as inadmissible.

 The form also allows you to provide other comments including your views on what changes the Royal Commission should consider.”

It may be trite to state the obvious, but the purpose of a hearing is to hear what people have to say. Court hearings may involve a tsunami of written statements, but the hearings involve listening to what witnesses have to say because that is the most effective form of communication. Implicit in the “your views on what changes the Royal Commission should consider” statement is the absence of dialogue that may lead to seemingly insignificant facts that may be of extreme importance being overlooked because a representative of the Commission decides, using what may be limited text-based information, what is appropriate information. I would point out that in the 1968 hearing by a Board of Inquiry into the probable causes of the loss of the USS Scorpion, Vice Admiral Bernard Austin, Chairman of the Inquiry, refused to accept a written submission from Admiral Rickover, the Director of the US Navy’s nuclear submarine program, because dialogue at the inquiry hearing had the potential to open-up fruitful lines of inquiry that a written submission may not have addressed.

Hard copy submissions of documents or other physical evidence may also provide the Commission with the ability to identify a pattern of inappropriate or unlawful conduct that an ordinary person may not perceive as inappropriate when making text based submissions. This is potentially inconsistent with Justice Brennan’s ruling that

“…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.”

The imposition of an administratively convenient, socially excluding, text based, information gathering system upon the people of Australia using perhaps the world’s most insecure cyber-crimes-vulnerable means of communications is a less than ideal solution. Whatever the perceived ‘necessity’ may be to undertake the FSRC Inquiry in a cost effective, efficient and expedient manner, the primary purpose is to uncover the truth so that the problems identified can be resolved in a fair, just and effective manner. In achieving this end, ‘necessity’ is not a legally valid consideration., a point of law that was expressed by the High Court almost 100 years ago in the ‘Engineer’s decision’.

In Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ case”); HCA 54 on 31st August 1920, in the 3rd paragraph of the majority decision, Justice Isaacs stated:

The question presented is of the highest importance to the people of Australia, grouped nationally or sectionally, and it has necessitated a survey, not merely of the Constitution itself, but also of many of the decisions of this Court on various points more or less closely related to the question we have directly to determine. The more the decisions are examined, and compared with each other and with the Constitution itself, the more evident it becomes that no clear principle can account for them. They are sometimes at variance with the natural meaning of the text of the Constitution; some are irreconcilable with others, and some are individually rested on reasons not founded on the words of the Constitution or on any recognized principle of the common law underlying the expressed terms of the Constitution, but on implication drawn from what is called the principle of “necessity,” that being itself referable to no more definite standard than the personal opinion of the Judge who declares it. The attempt to deduce any consistent rule from them has not only failed, but has disclosed an increasing entanglement and uncertainty, and a conflict both with the text of the Constitution and with distinct and clear declarations of law by the Privy Council.

The statement “The question presented is of the highest importance to the people of Australia, grouped nationally or sectionally…” is equally valid for the current situation where, since at least 2004, the Australian Electoral Commission has been engaging in defective administration by conducting hybrid elections in which both eligible and disqualified candidates have participated, and in which disqualified candidates have been declared elected to fill some of the contested vacancies. Barnaby Joyce and Stephen Parry filled senate vacancies in 2004 despite being disqualified candidates who were not expelled from the Parliament until a High Court decision in October 2017. During the intervening period, Barnaby Joyce had successfully contested the 2010, 2013 and 2016 federal elections whilst Stephen Parry had successfully contested the 2010 and 2016 federal senate elections.

In ‘Engineers’, Justice Isaacs effectively invalidated one of his previous rulings in Vardon v O’Loghlin;  HCA 69; 20 December 1907 where he had made a ruling that is currently being used to justify both the votes cast by disqualified people who had been elected to the Federal parliament and to also justify why these people should not be asked to repay the monies that they had received whilst serving in the parliament.

 “Mr. Vardon was declared not to have been elected, and from the moment of that decision he must be considered in law never to have been a senator, never to have had a place, never to have had a term of service. The validity of his public acts as a senator prior to the declaration is, of course, unaffected.”

 The statement “The validity of his public acts as a senator prior to the declaration is, of course, unaffected” is inconsistent with the much more recent 2002 Bhardwaj finding and is also inconsistent with a constitutionally binding statute, i.e. Section 10A of the Parliamentary Entitlements Act. When it comes to the declarations of results for disqualified people who were declared elected in the 2016 federal election, the Bhardwaj precedent that if there is no jurisdiction, then, in law, there is no decision at all and the decision remains to be made is applicable. If the declarations of results from an unconstitutionally conducted election are, in law, no decision at all, then it is fortiori that all executive decisions made by the Turnbull Government are also, in law, no decision at all.

Further compounding the invalidity of hybrid elections conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission is the constitutional matter of fact that Electors had no legally valid right to vote for constitutionally disqualified candidates in hybrid elections that contained both eligible and disqualified candidates. Consequently, regardless of which candidates were eligible and which were constitutionally disqualified, the 2016 election, like all previous hybrid elections, was a “Poisoned tree” with the declarations of results being ‘fruit of the poisoned tree.’ If I am correct in my belief that Bhardwaj applies to the 2016 election’s declarations of results, then all decisions of the 45th parliament are, in law, “no decision at all” and a legally valid election of the 45th Parliament has not yet occurred.

With disqualified candidates facing massive debts for the repayment of monies that they were not entitled to receive, it is understandable that the Vardon decision is being touted to the public whilst the Amalgamated Engineers decision is not being mentioned. Such a lack of integrity at the parliamentary level raises questions as to the trickle-down impact or influence of unethical conduct by the parliament upon the financial sector.

The Raindrop Funding principle

The proposal by the Turnbull Government to provide billions of dollars in tax cuts to the banking sector is almost inexplicable as it effectively rewards an industry that has defrauded some of its customers. One possible explanation is that the Turnbull Government is a ‘bought-and paid for government’, i.e. this government has been suborned,

In theory, disclosure of payments to political parties is transparent but illicit funding is possible through the astute use of what I colloquially call ‘raindrop funding’. The example of this type of funding is the quasi-legal election funding payments that I refer to as the ‘1st Preference Bonanza Lottery.’ In what was almost certainly a gross act of hypocrisy, on 30th September 2014, Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s response to the rejection of unconstitutional, genocidal legislation was:

I am all in favour of rights. I am also in favour of the rights of taxpayers not to have their money abused. I am in favour of the rights of taxpayers to say that young people should be doing the right thing by themselves and by our society.”

Tony Abbott: Question Time, 30th September 2014, [Hansard – page 10,755.]

The lack of honesty and integrity by Tony Abbott in claiming that the constitutional and human rights obligations to welfare payments were in some way an abuse of “the rights of taxpayers” is open to question when that statement is evaluated in the light of the violation-of-vested-interest-principles with the funneling of hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars into the coffers of the Liberal-National Coalition and the Australian Labour Party.

Taxpayer Funded Election Payments – ‘The 1st Preference Bonanza Lottery’

Taxpayer funded elected payments are an excellent example of ‘raindrop funding’ as each 1st preference payment is small but collectively they amount to staggeringly huge totals. As of 17th August 2016, the federal election payment to political parties and candidates totaled, $62,778,275, [See  ]

(s.297(1)) of the Electoral Act specifies that to be eligible to receive a payment of election funding a candidate for the House of Representatives must receive 4% or more of the formal first preference votes cast in the electorate contested by that candidate. For a Senate group to be eligible, the group as a whole must receive a total of 4% or more of the formal first preference votes in the election in the state or territory contested (s.297(2)).

Funding entitlements are calculated using an indexed sum per first preference vote. At the 2016 federal election, each first preference vote was $2.62.784. This amount is quite small, however, as the following table reveals, this quickly adds up to tens of millions of dollars. In all, taxpayers paid out $62,778,275 for casting their 1st preference votes in what was almost certainly a constitutionally invalid election. According information on the Electoral commission website, the largest payments were as follows:

  • Liberal Party of Australia      $24,203,154.00
  • Australian Labor Party           $23,191,686.57
  • Australian Greens                  $  6,717,055.98
  • National party                         $  3,261,589.61
  • One Nation                             $  1,745,369.28
  • Nick Xenophon Team            $  1,245,236.15
  • Family First                            $     222.940.69

Collectively, the total amount of money paid to political parties in 2016, i.e. $62,778,275, was gob-smacking. However, the High Court’s October 2017 decision ruling that Barnaby Joyce was not eligible to stand as a candidate in the 2016 elections is a decision that was equally valid for the 2004, 2010, and 2013 elections that he contested. Since Barnaby Joyce was a disqualified candidate, this resulted in a very substantial Election Expenses payment that neither he nor the National Party was entitled to receive.

New England – 10 candidates – 102,200 voters

  • Formal  votes              95,044             92.96% of eligible voters
  • Informal votes            7,196               7.04% of eligible voters
  • Barnaby Joyce
  • 1st preference: votes              49, 673   [52.29% of formal votes]

Not knowing that Barnaby Joyce was not eligible to stand as a candidate, 55,595, voters in the New England electorate, i.e. 58.52% of the people who cast a formal preference vote, gave a preference vote to an ineligible candidate who was wrongly declared elected.

The cost of the Election Expenses Payments to Mr. Joyce in the 2013 and 2016 was huge:

  • 2016: 1st preferences votes – 49,673 x  $2.62.784 per vote = $130,532.69
  • 2013: 1st preference votes  – 49,486 x  $2.48.80 per vote = $123,121.16

 ‘Taxpayer funded ‘raindrops’:

At this time, a 2-bedroom, solid brick construction home in my street is selling for a listed price of $235,000. Compare that with the $253, 653.85 that was paid to Barnaby Joyce, who was not even eligible to be nominated, let alone fill a House of Representatives vacancy and receive $253,000 in election expenses payments. The data below reveals the growth in the cost of these ‘raindrop payments’ since 1998:


1998    12,184,050                  $31 103 228.82

2001    12,708,837                  $38 559 409.33

2004    13,098,461                  $41,926,158.91

2007    13,646,539                  $49 002 638.51

2010    14,088,260                  $53 163 385.36

2013    14,812,090                  $58 076 456.01

2016    15,787,514                  $62,778,275.03  

TOTAL:                                  $334,609,522.17

 The following points should be noted concerning these raindrop payments:

  1. Between 1998 and 2016, there was a 29.57% increase in the total number of formal 1st preference voters, i.e. from 12,184,050 to 15,878,514.
  2. However, there was a massive 201.83% increase in the taxpayer funding of ‘Election Expenses’ payments, i.e. up from $31,103,228 to $62,778,275.
  3. Approximately 80% of the total payments, i.e. $334,609,522, was made to the Liberal-National Coalition, and the Australian Labour Party.
  4. Since 1998, this little-known ‘raindrop’ funding of the Liberal-National Coalition and the ALP has funnelled approximately $250 million dollars into the coffers of these parties, thus enabling them to run costly taxpayer funded election campaigns.
  5. The cost-to-date of this ‘raindrop funding’ is a minute fraction of the projected costs over the next 80 years as these payments are inflation-proofed by being inflation-indexed every 6-months even though elections normally occur every 3-years.
  6. In 2099 when the last election of this century is nominally due to occur, the Election Expenses funding will cost taxpayers approximately $1 BILLION.
  7. Based on a compound rate of 3%, if this quasi-legal ‘Fee-for-no-service’ is not immediately cancelled, several billions of taxpayers’ dollars will have been transferred from public funds to the major political parties by the Year 2100.
  8. The scale of this little-known taxpayer’ funding scheme massively skews elections as micro-parties and independent candidates are unable to access the tens of millions of taxpayers’ funded dollars that underpin the massive publicity campaigns run by the Liberal-National Coalition and the Australian labour Party.

Specialist financial expertise is required if Australia’s corporate sector should seek to discretely ‘raindrop fund’ senior politicians or a major political party, and thereby illicitly purchase their political support. This micro-money-movement expertise is most likely to be available within the finance sector. Any illicit ‘raindrop funding’ activity would require forensic data-mining by highly skilled experts to uncover any such illegal funding activity. Such an investigation presupposes a willingness by an authorized entity, e.g. the Federal Police, to undertake an investigation to ascertain why regulations intended to protect the public from unethical or fraudulent conduct have been rendered ineffective to the point that some financial organizations have been able to engage in unethical conduct for over a decade without being detected and held accountable in the courts.

Unethical Politicians: fatal consequences

Politicians may refer to Ministers and former Ministers as “Honourable,” but there is nothing honourable about deliberate deceits that results in the deaths of innocent people.

A year ago, Kirsty Boden and 7 other people died on London Bridge in an ISIS terrorist attack that would not have occurred if, in the lead up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, Prime Minister John Howard and General Peter Cosgrove, had not mislead the nation with false claims of irrefutable evidence that “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.”  In a speech made at the National Press Club on 13th March 2003, John Howard stated:

“And if terrorists ever get their hand-on weapon of mass destruction that will, in my very passionate belief and argument, constitute a direct, undeniable and lethal threat to Australia and its people, and that would be the ultimate nightmare not only for us but for other peoples in other nations. That, more than anything else, is the reason why we have taken the stance we have and it’s the reason why we believe that Iraq should be effectively and comprehensively disarmed.”

On the 6th July 2016, the Privy Council of the English Parliament released the Chilton Report, a multi-volume summary of a 7-year-long inquiry into the unsanctioned invasion of Iraq.

The findings in the 2,500,000-word report left no doubt that the invasion was nothing more than an act of recklessly dangerous military adventurism that has placed the lives of everyone living in democratic countries in dire peril.

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 (NOTE: The paragraphs below are extracts from the Executive Summary.)

 573. 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.”

 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.

 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.

The Chilton Report is a scathing indictment, not only of Tony Blair and his government, but also of the United States and Australian Governments. The politically driven populist military adventure that resulted in the illegal invasion of Iraq has resulted in the downside of a global terrorist threat that is far beyond what those responsible for the illegal Iraq invasion ever imagined. In 2018, no-one is safe from Islamic State attacks, a fact demonstrated by the death of Curtis Cheng when leaving work and the Bourke Street Massacre in which6 people were killed and two dozen people were injured. Politicians, military leaders and vested interest supporters who focus upon issues of perceived ideologically importance can pose major threats to the lives of unsuspecting Australians. The precise death toll from the “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” lie may never be known but the cumulative death toll since the launch of the illegal invasion in March 2003 is unlike to be less that 200,000.

The justifiably harsh criticisms in the Chilton Report were echoed by Commissioner Ian Hanger in the Report of the Home Improvement Program with his criticism of the Rudd Government and senior Public Service officials for placing political agendas, policies and administrative procedures ahead of rational thinking that was based upon a hard-headed, objective assessment of the facts, especially the risks inherent in the Home Improvement Program.

Commissioner Hanger made it quite clear in Section 14.6 of his findings that senior public services had to function as the Devil’s Advocate when advising government ministers about the real-world implementation of ideology based policies. The fearless approach that Commissioner Hanger used to expose the reasons why 4 young men died, a young woman received horrific burns and some 200 homes caught fire was effective in exposing serious deficiencies in the political and Public Services processes. Can the FSRC Inquiry be any less fearless in discovering the truth?

  1. Who were the senior Public Service personnel who were supposed to provide broad-ranging, impartial advice concerning the benefits and, perhaps more importantly, the negative consequences of removing regulations that were originally set in place for the express purpose of protecting the public from financial misconduct?
  2. What impartial advice, if any, was provided about the inherent risks to the public and the national economy by de-regulating the Finance sector?
  3. Which federal government ministers and/or parliamentary secretaries received APS advice on the negative aspects of de-regulation and what was their official responses to the perceived pitfalls in de-regulation of the finance sector?

Based upon a plethora of inquiry reports into politically initiated disasters, e.g.  the Chilton Report in the UK, the national RCIADIC, Sexual Abuse in Institutionalized Care and HIP reports and South Australian reports such the De Belle Inquiry, the Nyland Report and the hard-hitting Oakden Report, it is my viewpoint that all political decisions that can potentially compromise public welfare and safety are bad decisions that are likely to be unconstitutional decisions. There is therefore a compelling public duty for any (validly appointed) commission of inquiry to scope out the extent to which ideology-driven-idiocy may have underpinned the current disaster that the FSRC Inquiry is now investigating.

Because of the Australian Electoral Commission’s defective administration of the conduct of the 2016 federal election, as has been stated previously, it is my viewpoint that it is possible that the despite the invaluable work already done, the Financial Services Royal Commission may have no legally valid jurisdiction to conduct this inquiry. Given the high number of disqualified people who were wrongly declared elected in 2016, the validity of the FSRC Inquiry is likely to be tested in the courts during future civil or criminal actions relating to the information already uncovered by the FSRC inquiry.

Given the potential for ‘Poisoned fruit’ challenges to the Financial Services Royal Commission of Inquiry because of the questionable validity of the 2016 federal election and other issues such as the potential socio-economic exclusion issues caused by the sole use of text-based, on-line means of interacting with the general public, the findings of the inquiry already may be seriously compromised. Consequently, despite all the excellent work undertaken by the FSRC Inquiry to date, there is the possibility that the FSRC Inquiry may wind up suffering the same fate as the 2005 Morris Inquiry in Queensland, i.e. at great cost to taxpayers’, the findings could be ruled invalid by a court. This could then result in FSRC evidence and testimony being considered by courts to be ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’

Given all of these points of law and legal issues, I respectfully recommend that the FSRC Inquiry act in the public interest and seek a ruling from the High Court as to the validity of the conduct of the 2016 federal election by the Australian Electoral Commission.

At the same time, a ruling from the High Court as to the legality and validity of restricting initial submissions to the inquiry solely to text based web page submissions should be obtained.

 Norma’s Fight: The human impact face of Australia’s “silent” holocaust.

Lord Penzance’s statement that the law is the handmaid of Justice reflects the common-sense viewpoint that the human impact of legal issues should always be the primary concern of decision-makers. With that principle in mind, it is vital to realize that the Financial Services Deregulation Disaster (FS2D) that is the focus of FSRC Inquiry is ‘only’ a 2nd Tier disaster and will remain so until the scale of the human impact, measured in financial, emotional and physical harms is quantified. To understand why the FS2D is only a 2nd Tier disaster, it is necessary to understand that it is essentially a spin-off from the worst case of systemic mass fraud and systemic serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The automated ‘alleged debt’ recovery policies and practices being currently being enforced by the Turnbull Government at the reported rate of up to 20,000 tortious claims per week along with the unconstitutional Work for the Dole scheme and equally unconstitutional, human rights violating ‘No show, no dole’ laws are, collectively, the worst abuse of power case of mass fraud in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. I believe that once the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll is accurately quantified, it will prove to be the worst case of serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia.

A registered teacher and a volunteer lay-advocate, I do not make the above statement lightly, for I know that if false information is provided to a Royal Commission official, under section 257 of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935), I could face a career destroying 3-year jail sentence. In addition, as a Christian, it would violate my personal code of ethics to bear false witness. As a barrister, you understand “The essence of ‘Truth is Proof’ and it is proof that I wish to provide to the FSRC Inquiry. On the evening of 8th May 2018, the Channel 7 network broadcast a ‘today tonight’ segment titled “Norma’s fight.” This segment can currently be viewed at:

I believe that the FSRC Inquiry should view this 6-minute segment as it graphically highlights the human impact of extreme financial stress upon our nation’s most vulnerable. Norma has been recklessly placed in extreme, dangerously dehumanizing circumstances by the brutally ruthless rape of her citizens’ rights. Dehumanizing vulnerable is about deliberately robbing people of respect, especially the right to be respected as a person. In order to gain insight into the specific cause of the Financial Services Deregulation Disaster, both Norma and myself should be invited, or subpoenaed, to provide information about the modus operandi of Australia’s longest running mass fraud and serial murder cases. In making that suggestion, I would point out that Norma does not know that she is the victim of a monstrous State-sanctioned-abuse-of-power that randomly kills vulnerable people.

As I have stated in a previous email, during his speech to the SS leadership at a meeting in Posen in 1943, Heinrich Himmler made the following ideology driven, dehumanizing statement that was an ideological rationalized for the Nazi Holocaust:

“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 Posen Conference (1943)

Nuremberg Document PS1919.

Himmler did not see Jews and other undesirable people as human beings; merely as ‘things’ to be exploited and then destroyed.

Your own personal failure to stop the persecution, vilification, dehumanizing, intimidation, exploitation, defrauding, endangerment and deaths of some of Australia’s most vulnerable people provides insight into the Federal Parliament has deliberately mistreated welfare recipients for decades. Unable to solve the problems of unemployment and growing cost of welfare, Australian politicians have opted to dehumanize welfare recipients so that they are perceived as a drain on society that somehow ‘deserve’ to be punished. The community acceptance of this dehumanizing of welfare recipients, as is evidenced by the failure of Australia’s entire Justice system to prevent decades of genocide and crimes against humanity that are also violations of federal, State and territory criminal laws, means that for the victims of these crimes, e.g. Norma, there is no different in practice than the acceptance by the national community in Nazi Germany that Jews were “Life unworthy of life.” Who was responsible for making such unscrupulous conduct lawful?

It would be gross negligence for the FSRC Inquiry to fail to consider is the extent to which this ‘Posen Mindset’ belief in the ‘rightness’ of a political ideology is now causing national harm that could have been avoided if senior public servants and had the moral courage to do their jobs properly. In my 1st email to you, Outlook over-rode the bullet-point numbers from the Hanger Royal Commission citation and inserted a set of inaccurate numbers. The following is a re-submission with the correct bullet-point numbers:

[14.6.9] As explained in Chapter 2 of the APSC Guide:

 The APS works within, and to implement, the elected government’s policies and outcomes . . . Good advice from the APS is unbiased and objective. It is politically neutral but not naïve, and is developed and offered with an understanding of its implications and of the broader policy directions set by government.

  [14.6.10] It is also said:

 Responsive advice is frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely. The advice should be evidence-based, well argued and creative, anticipate issues and appreciate the underlying intent of government policy. Responsive advice is also forthright and direct and does not withhold or gloss over important known facts or ‘bad news’.

 Responsiveness demands a close and cooperative relationship with Ministers and their employees. The policy advisory process is an iterative one, which may involve frequent feedback between the APS and the Minister and his or her office.

 Responsive implementation of the government’s policies and programmes (APS Values (f)) is achieved through a close and cooperative relationship with Ministers and their employees.  Ministers may make decisions, and issue policy guidelines with which decisions made by APS employees must comply.

  [14.6.11] It is a shame that those entrusted with the implementation of the HIP did not adhere to these principles.

  1. In Centrelink letter C10/1866, dated 18 May 2010, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill wrote that Centrelink does not collect post Breaching Terminal outcomes Statistics and therefore could not provide information about the number of fatalities caused by welfare penalties imposed by Centrelink.
  2. Fast forward to AATA 904, 5th December 2014, whare, at 42 you find the following statement: Mrs. Locke’s contention that (s)he acted in reliance of incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials security recipients. This circumstance is not so unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance” for the purpose of s 1237AAD(b) of the SSA.
  3. In April 2016, the Federal Health Minister, Sussan Ley, was forced to apologize because her department had sent letters to people who had been dead for up to 20-years, or even longer. The comments below were sourced from:

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.”

  1. A million letters sent out with “a small number” being sent to dead people. From a statistic perspective 5% of 1 million letters, is ‘a small number.” However, from a human impact perspective, one letter such letter was one too many, let alone the undisclosed “small number’ that may have been around the 50,000 mark.
  2. 10 months later, on the 20th February 2017, Senator Brandis admitted during an ABC #QandA broadcast that “mistakes” had resulted in “terrible” human consequences.”
  3. The next day, I pointed out that the unreported deaths may be around 100,000, or even higher. Elizabeth Ulrick, the government lawyer handling the government’s response, opted not to contest that statistical estimate.

See No Evil: One reason why Centrelink does not know how many of its former clients are dead is because the politicians in oversight committees do not ask about the human impact of recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional laws, policies and practices, whilst the public servants most directly responsible for the fatal “mistakes’ definitely to do not tell.


The ruthless rape of Norma’ s constitutional, legal and human rights is causing the very visible Ongoing Traumatic Stress (OTS) that is very evident in the video. Stress causes Hypertension, which in turn causes an incurable, potentially lethal disease called Myocardia.

The OTS being experienced by Norma may parallel the human impact to law income earners who are the victims of the apparent unconscionable and unscrupulous conduct of financial institutions in systematically looting small accounts with excessive fees or totally inappropriate charges, e.g. a $15,000 fee to switch a $60,000 superannuation investment to another fund. How many small superannuation accounts, i.e. those under $100,000 that are the ‘nest egg’ of older citizens, under-employed people, or long-term unemployed people, have been gutted. leaving these people, like Norma, dependent upon welfare support and therefore vulnerable to the abuses of power being experienced by Norma.

  1. Can any Officer-of-the-Court involved in FSRC Inquiry explain to me why the Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal [AAT] has been holding trials and making supposedly binding findings of fact, sans any findings of fact by a court?
  2. Can any Officer-of-the-Court involved in FSRC Inquiry explain to me why the Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Australian Government Services lawyers are not held accountable for the viewpoint that DHS/Centrelink tortious conduct triggered fatalities and High Court’s decisions such as Hellicar, Coco, Kioa, Boughey, Williams v Spautz and the 2002 ‘no jurisdiction’ Bhardwaj decision are simply ignored?
  3. Can any Officer-of-the-Court involved in FSRC Inquiry explain to me why the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman has also ignored these fatalities, even after Senator Brandis had admitted that “mistakes” had resulted in “terrible human consequences” and the Secretary of Social Services had not disputed that they cumulative death toll may be around 100,000, or even far higher?
  4. The primary responsibility of an Officer-of-the-Court is to uphold the law and yet, as a societal group, the legal professional has been mute when it comes to these brutal, genocidal crimes against humanity.
  5. I am therefore of the viewpoint that every Officer-of-the-Court who has failed Norma, and every other Robo-Debt Scam victim, has violated the Constitution and their Oath of Office, i.e. they have brought the legal profession into disrepute.
  6. The 7 Network legal team ‘ought to have known’ about the High Court’s ‘model litigant decisions, especially Hellicar and Bhardwaj and that Norma was being defrauded and, yet no pro bono advice or assistance was offered to Norma.
  7. In Boughey v R; HCA 29 on 6th June 1986, the phrase “ought to have known” was mentioned 22 times. With the concurrence of Chief Justice Gibbs, at 31 in their findings Justices Mason, Wilson and Deane ruled:

“The phrase to which I would like to direct your attention mainly here is ‘ought to have known’. Here you consider what in your view the accused ought to have known in all his then relevant circumstances. All his then relevant circumstances would include many factors; (it) would include, for example, the fact that he is a medical practitioner, the nature of his medical practice over the years, his training, his sexual experiences, the extent to which, if any, his medical training and experience should have alerted him to the dangers of applying carotid artery pressure…”   [Note; underline emphasis added.]

 The Boughey precedent is as valid for the legal profession in 2018 as it was for Doctor Boughey in 1986. As has been mentioned previously, on the 20th February 2017 when the Federal Attorney-General, George Brandis admitted that “mistakes” had resulted in “terrible human consequences,” these fatalities were justified on the basis that “We need appropriate compliance measures”.

  1. Starting with Julien Burnside QC, who was present when that statement was made, exactly how many Officers-of-the-Court have responded to that confession of criminal negligence by ignoring it instead of filing a criminal negligence complaint with the police or filing professional misconduct charges with the ALS?
  2. In December 2016, Andrew Wilkie MP issued a press release claiming that ‘Centrelink has gone rogue’. He was half right for it was the Federal Parliament itself that had gone rogue, with the Turnbull Government sending out a reported 20,000 unaudited letters of demands that required respondents to explain ‘data-mismatches’ that may in fact have been Commonwealth errors, i.e. systemic mistakes by Centrelink.
  3. By voluntary physical acts of omission, Australia’s justice system has literally let the Federal Parliament get away with mass fraud and random serial murders; now the national community is reaping the downside of allowing unconstitutionally elected, self-serving, ideology driven politicians to castrate vital regulatory protections.
  4. Ms. Orr, like the nation of Germany in 1945, we are now reaping what we have sown.

Every officer-of-the-Court participating in the FSRC Inquiry needs to consider broad range of real-world harms being caused by unconstitutionally elected hybrid Federal Parliaments. Look beyond the financial harms caused and closely examine the human impact on Australia’s most vulnerable citizens, i.e. the elderly, under-employed or unemployed people, most of whom have very limited financial resources and have been the most hard-hit victims of the unscrupulous ‘High fee-no service’ or ‘High fee-low service’ practices? One of my own $20,000 superannuation investments received a return of about $720 that was then reduced to well below the rate of inflation with a bank fee of about $600. A return of about $120 on a $20,000 investment at a time when term deposits were paying 5% was poor financial advice by the bank and the only upside was that it motivated me to move my superannuation to an industry based fund where the low-fee returns on investment have been substantially higher, i.e. usually a four-figure sum.

If a June 2015 government fact sheet is correct, 40% of Australians are expected to be receiving a welfare allowance by 2025, a statistic that makes it a critical issue of concern as to just how many low-income investors have been reduced to a destitute state by excessive high fees and what have been the real-world impact of such practices.

Many people on subsistence level incomes may avoid contacting the inquiry because they do not consider that their circumstances will be relevant. Government and commercial organizations provide administrative guidelines to aid their organizations to function efficiently; in the same way, many people who cannot even afford a daily newspaper also need information about the issues that may be of critical importance to the inquiry.

  1. 40%+ functional illiteracy and 30%+ poverty are barriers to participation that prevent the inquiry from being socio-economically inclusive and thus there is a need promote the inquiry using radio and television broadcasting services, i.e. advertise.
  2. Set up a free-call 1300 telephone hotline, and pro-actively canvas the nation to seek feedback from people who were harmed by inappropriate policies and practices with the banking, superannuation and finance sectors.
  3. Feedback from surviving family members should be sought to determine how many people were so stressed by inappropriate financial practices that they suffered a fatal heart attack or stroke, or were so traumatized that they committed suicide.
  4. Actively reaching out to the general community and removing any barriers to communication is mission critical, if for no other reason than the fact that under State and Territory laws, e.g. sections 12A and 13.7 of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act and section 302 of the Queensland Crimes Act (1899), any unlawful conduct triggered deaths are likely to be (felony) murders in these states.
  5. There are statutory obligations upon the FSRC Inquiry to ensure that no culpable homicides caused by financial sector malpractice are overlooked or ignored.

Subject only to the rules of evidence and procedural fairness, I have the right to submit what I believe is credible, relevant information in any legally valid manner that I believe is most appropriate. Transmitting sensitive financial information over the Internet for input into a web page that may be subject to either illegal hacking or politically motivated court injunctions does not rationally qualify as “appropriate” means of communication with a royal commission. In 1990, how many people who participated in the nation-wide RCIADIC inquiry initially participated by filling in a web page form? The answer to that question is of course ZERO because the technology did not exist at that time.

The Posen Mindset (mens mala): “People do have the right to be bigots.”

Just over 70-years after Heinrich Himmler’s infamous Posen speech, on the 24th March 2014, Attorney-General Brandis attempted to justify the removal of statutory racial vilification protection with the statement that “people do have the right to be bigots.

When questioned about that statement in the House of Representatives, Prime Minister Abbott said,

 “Of course this Government is determined to try to ensure that Australia remains a free and fair and tolerant society, where bigotry and racism has no place. But we also want this country to be a nation where freedom of speech is enjoyed. And sometimes, Madam Speaker, free speech will be speech which upsets people, which offends people.”

Mr. Abbott was following a well-worn path in promoting a perceived public benefit to justify conduct that could be extremely dangerous to vulnerable people. Consequently, whatever else the attempt to reduce the level of protection that was provided by Section 18c of the Racial Vilification Act was, legitimizing Bigotry was not an act of “good government.”

In the United States in 1960, Judge J. Skelly Wright ordered that the first day of integration in New Orleans schools would be Monday 1st November 1960. On that day, 6-year-old Ruby Bridges was escorted into the Williams Franz Elementary School by 4 federal marshals who had to escort her through a large angry, abusive crowd of white parents who shouted hate statements and threw objects. This armed escort was necessary for the rest of the school year. Whilst we may assume that this could not happen in Australia, the Racial Restriction Act of 1901 and the infamous “Stolen Generations” laws introduced in the Federal Parliament are dark spots in Australia’s history. For example, when the Racial Restriction Act was tabled in the Federal Parliament in July 1901, the Prime Minister, Edmund Barton, endorsed the legislation with this exceeding racist comment:

“I do not think either that the doctrine of the equality of man was really ever intended to include racial equality. There is no racial equality. There is basic inequality. These races are, in comparison with white races—I think no one wants convincing of this fact—unequal and inferior. The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman. There is deep-set difference, and we see no prospect and no promise of its ever being effaced. Nothing in this world can put these two races upon an equality. Nothing we can do by cultivation, by refinement, or by anything else will make some races equal to others.”

Edmund Barton “Immigration Restriction Bill”, House of representatives,

Debates, 12 September 1901, paragraph 5233.

In Amalgamated Engineers HCA 54, 31st August 1920, at paragraph 8, Justice Isaacs cited statement made by Lord Haldane during debate on Australia’s constitution in the English Parliament in 1898:

“In the words of a distinguished lawyer and statesman. Lord Haldane, when a member of the House of Commons, delivered on the motion for leave to introduce the bill for the Act which we are considering… I mean the institution of responsible government, a government under which the Executive is directly responsible to—nay, is almost the creature of—the Legislature.

Section 51 of the constitution restricts the Parliament solely to the enactment of legislation for the clearly stated purpose of “good government.” This was the viewpoint of Justice Higgins at paragraph 9 of his concurring findings in Amalgamated engineers’:

“In connection with this subject, much argument has been addressed to sec. V. of the Constitution Act—what we call the “covering sections” of the Constitution. It provides that that Act and all laws made under the Constitution “shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and people of every State … notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State.” I take sec. 51 of the Constitution as defining subject matters for legislation, and covering sec. V. as defining the persons who are to obey the legislation.”

Clearly, members of the Federal parliament are bound by Section 51 of the constitution, which specifically requires “good government.” If the laws enacted do not meet this constitutional criterion, then, in law, they are no law at all as they are invalid laws.

  1. It is self-evident that legislation that causes serious financial harm, emotional harm, or which does randomly result in fatalities, is not “good government.”
  2. As per justice Higgins finding in ‘Engineers’, the phrase “good government” is therefore a constraint on the powers of the Parliament as all laws that can foreseeably harm people are unconstitutional, i.e. they are, in law, no law at all.
  3. Since the purpose of ‘regulation’ is to protect, any statutory deregulation that increases the risk of harm is likely to be unconstitutional and therefore invalid.
  4. Since all Members of Parliament are ‘agents’, i.e. Representatives, it is also a breach of the Duty of Agency to vote in support of legislation that can foreseeably cause harm to Electors; this is especially so when the foreseeable harm caused is random fatalities that violate Commonwealth, State, Territory or international homicide laws.
  5. During the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal hearings, the excuse used by many people who had been accused of committing war crimes or crimes against humanity was “I was only following orders.” When orders could result in serious or fatal harm, this excuse was not accepted by the War Crimes Tribunals.
  6. It is therefore axiomatic that all legislation passed by the Australian Federal Parliament that could foreseeably cause fatal harm, is a bad law that public servants should not obey.
  7. The problem with such laws, e.g. the unconstitutional ‘No show, no pay’, law, contained section 42C of the Social Security Act, is that no matter how repressive and potentially lethal a law may be, once enacted, some public servants will place enforcement of “the law” ahead of foreseeably harmful consequences.
  8. “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.” Francis Neale. Co-chair: International Bar Association – Rule of Law Action Group. July 2009 (As cited by The Hon. Michael Kirby AC CMG in “The Rule of Law and the Law of Rules: A Semi-Sceptical Perspective.”  Malaysian Bar Association,     15th Malaysian Law Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 29th July 2010.)

At the beginning of this communication I pointed out that under the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935), that “detriment” had a broad range of meanings. I certainly consider fatal “mistakes” when exploiting, intimidating and defrauding welfare recipients to be with the category of “detriment,” as are the emotional and physical harms caused by deregulation of protective financial sector laws and racial vilification laws.

The harm caused by bad laws means a failure to meet the constitutional requirement of “good government” and are therefore such laws are almost certainly unconstitutional, i.e. they are, in law, no law at all. This is especially applicable to all ‘bad government’ laws that have been enacted by unconstitutionally elected ‘hybrid parliaments’, which are in themselves, ‘bad government.’ The High Court is obligated under paragraph 5 of the Constitution, to uphold section 44 of the Constitution using the powers granted to the High Court under section 360 of the Australian Electoral Act, and the High Court’s own determination in Bhardwaj at 51 – 53, to rule that the 45th Parliament was an invalidly elected ‘hybrid parliament’ that must be declared absolutely void and thereby dissolved in order to allow for the election of a constitutionally valid parliament that contains no people who are disqualified and have been wrongfully declared elected. I would point out that declaring the 2016 federal election to be null and void reflects what would almost certainly happen in the corporate sector is a Board of Directors containing disqualified candidates was elected. For example, how many Commonwealth Bank or AMP shareholders would accept as valid the election of a Board of Directors that contained a dozen people who were bankrupt, had criminal convictions, or were disqualified under statute laws from holding a Director’s position? The answer to that rhetorical question is that very few shareholders, if any, would passively regard the election of such a Board of Directors as being valid. It is therefore fair and reasonable to expect the High Court to be asked to rule that the 45th Parliament, which was elected in an unconstitutional manner and contained at least a dozen disqualified people who had no constitutional right to be nominated, let alone elected, is an invalidly elected parliament.

However, until the High Court rules that the Declaration of Results for the 45th Parliament was invalid and void, and therefore the establishment of the FSRC Inquiry is also void, the Inquiry should continue to scrutinize the scope and scale of misconduct that apparently existed, or still exists, within the Banking, Superannuation and Finance sectors.

A Request:

With the above point of law in mind, I therefore request that you consider implementing one or more of the following options:

Option #1:

In writing, i.e. not via email or SMS, provide me with instructions as to how to submit physical evidence such as documents and optical disks that can be evaluated for the legal merit of the information contained therein.

Option #2:

Contact me by phone and interview me to ascertain the merit of information that I am seeking to provide to the Office of the Financial Services Royal Commission.

Option #3:

Subpoena me and allow me to provide an evidence-based ‘grassroots view’ to the Inquiry that may open up new lines of investigation.

Option #4

Invite Norma to testify to the Financial Services Royal Commission so that the Inquiry may have first-hand input on how extreme financial hardship, whether by a government entity or a commercial entity, can result in extreme levels of harm that no caring society should ever tolerate.

Option #5:

Do your civic duty and uphold the law. The unreported, “terrible human consequences” that Attorney-General Brandis mentioned may be officially “irrelevant” in Australia, but they are murders under Article 7A of the Rome Statute.

In a clear parallel with SAPOL’s failure in the 1990s to deal with the sexual abuse of children at St Ann’s Special School, there is irrefutable documentary evidence that implicates officials in both the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission in voluntary physical acts of omission that conceal the deliberate endangerment, defrauding and deaths of welfare recipients, e.g. AFP document 3286232, dated 7th July 2004 and ACC document 10/48553, dated 11 May 2010.

I therefore recommend the forwarding of this email on an ‘FYI’ basis to every police commissioner, chief coroner, human rights commissioner and ICAC in every State and Territory within the Commonwealth of Australia. By doing, you will have fulfilled your responsibilities as an Officer-of-the Court and as an Australian citizen.

The proverbial ‘elephant in the room’ for the Financial Services Royal Commission is the very real possibility that the 2016 federal election was null and void and therefore the inquiry has no legal jurisdiction to inquire into the marketing abuses and unscrupulous activities so far identified. I therefore believe that it is in the public interest to obtain as much information as you can about the abuses of marketing power that have been occurring before the Inquiry is shut down by a High Court decision that rules that the 2016 hybrid election was constitutionally invalid. Once the high Court hands down such a decision, the Financial Services Royal Commission is likely to suffer the same fate as the 2005 Morris Commission of Inquiry, will be shut down and the Inquiry’s findings to date will be rendered “poisoned fruit” that is inadmissible in court. However, the public will have been altered to the types of unscrupulous activities that are occurring and, caveat emptor, can take appropriate steps to minimize the risk of being exploited or defrauded.

Yours truly,

Ronald Medlicott

(Registered teacher and volunteer lay-advocate.)


  • Chief Legal Counsel – AMP Society.
  • Chief legal Counsel – Commonwealth Bank.
  • Commissioner Bruce Lander – SA Independent Commission against Corruption. (SA ICAC)
  • Mr. Mark Johns – South Australian Coroner.
  • Commissioner Grant Stevens – SA Police (SAPOL)
  • Ronald’s space – WordPress website – text of this email
  • YouTube – A yadnarie12 posting of the screen-capture video-recording of this email when ‘posted’ to you.


Legal Precedents

Case law precedents that underscore the fact that “Robo-Debt” and the “No show, no pay’ laws are reckless, unlawful acts.

 R v Faure; VSCA 166; 24th September 1999], at paragraph 28 Justice Brooking quoted from an 1843 report to the English Parliament by a Royal Commission of Inquiry:

“…in the absence of a special definite rule of law which defines what is meant by implied malice, consist simply in the disregard of life manifested by exposing life to peril, although no malice in the popular sense of the term exist against any individual.” 

Commissioners’ 7th Report [1843] 19 Parliamentary Papers, p.24

 Report of the Home Improvement Program Inquiry – Finding at

 “Government must recognize that as much as it might seek to do so, risk cannot be abrogated. The responsibility of Government is to care for its citizens and to exercise care and diligence to do everything reasonable to ensure that its citizens are not placed in danger by its actions, particularly risk of death and serious injury.

 Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd. HCA 54; 31 August 1920

Justice Isaacs at paragraph 4 of the Majority Decision:

“The grounds upon which the Privy Council came to that conclusion we refer to, but need not repeat, adding, however, that as the Commonwealth and State Parliaments and Executives are themselves bound by the declarations of this Court as to their powers inter se, our responsibility is so much the greater to give the true effect to the relevant constitutional provisions.”

 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar HCA 17; 3rd May 2012

[Paragraph 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 for at least two reasons.”

 [Paragraph 143] “Second, the proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory agency relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require the regulatory agency to make some final judgment about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. 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 HCA 11; 14 March 2002

[Paragraph 51 and paragraph 53]

“A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all.”

 Case Findings:

 Amalgamated Society of Engineers v. Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd [1920]; HCA 54.

 Kioa v. West [HCA 81]; (18th December 1985)

 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v. Hellicar [HCA 17]; (3 May 2012)

 Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [HCA 11] (March 2002).

 Briginshaw v. Briginshaw [HCA 34] 30th June 1938

 Coco v R [HCA 15]; (13th April 1994)

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Poniatowska [HCA 43]; (24 October 2011)

 Commonwealth v Tasmania (Dam case) [HCA 21]; (1983) 158 CLR 1 (1 July 1983)

 Beckett v New South Wales [HCA 17]; (8 May 2013)

 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Keating [HCA 20]; (8 May 2013)

 Police v. Butcher [SASC 130], (17 August 2016)

 Keating v Morris & Ors; Leck v Morris & Ors [QSC 243] (1 September 2005)

 Bropho v. Western Australia ((10) [HCA 24]; (1990) 171 CLR 1

 Raymond v. Honey [1981] UKHL 8;(1983) 1 AC 1

 Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited [FCA 652]; (30 June 2015)

R v Keogh (NO 2) [SASC 180] (11 November 2015) {Nolle prosequi – flawed evidence}

 ACCC v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [(No.2) FCA 567]; (4 June 1010)

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [HCA 54];

 (12 December 2013)

 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v. Denlay & Anor [QCA] 217 (20 August 2010)

 Ratten v R [HCA 35]; 131 CLR 510 (25 September 1974)

 ACCC v AGL South Australia Pty Ltd [FCA 1369]; (12 December 2014)

Boughey v R [HCA 29]; (1986) 161 CLR 10 (6 June 1986)

 R v Faure [VSCA 166]; (24 September 1999)

 Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead [15 CLR 333, 342]; (21 October 1912).

 Morley & Ors v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2010]; NSWCA 331 (17 December 2010)

 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Clear Blue Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [FCA 1224]; (10 November 2010)

 Phillips, in the matter of Starrs & Co Pty Limited (In Liquidation) v Commissioner of Taxation [FCA 532]; (13 May 2011)

 LVR (WA) Pty Ltd v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [FCAFC 90]; (22 June 2012)

Caporale v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [FCA 427]; (9 May 20123

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Channel Seven Brisbane Pty Limited [HCA 19]; (30 April 2009)

Morton v Interpro Australia Pty Ltd [FMCA 423]; (14 May 2009)

ACCC v MSY Technology Pty Ltd [(No 2) 279 ALR 609]; (2011)

Kenny Charlie v. R [NTCCA 1]; (15 January 1998)

Chugg v Pacific Dunlop Ltd [HCA 41]; 170 CLR 249 F.C. 90/038 (3 October 1990)


Persuasive United States Court Decisions

 Carter v. Massachusetts, US Supreme Court (July 1st 25, 2016)

Unlawful duress that resulted in a suicide: parallels Section 13.7 of SA Criminal Law Consolidation Act

 Digital Data Fiction:   

US Navy Judge Advocate General -Court of Inquiry into loss of US Scorpion,  4th November 1968

[‘The Craven Effort’an attempt to lend some credence and some validity…” using thousands of computer simulations, i.e. computer assisted digital data fiction guesses, in an attempt to determine why the USS Scorpion had sunk with the loss of all hands.]

 Data Fiction: Watershed Unreliable Evidence decisions in US Courts

The Rodriguez v. City of Houston and the Melendez-Diaz decisions on 25th June 2009 radically changed the way expert evidence was presented in the United States. Experts had to be available for cross-examination, a practice that needs to implemented with the randomly lethal ‘Robo-Debt’ tort claims made by Centrelink.

Rodriguez v. City Of Houston,  US Federal Court (25th June 2009)

Tort Action Brief of Appellee, George Rodriguez (Doc’  00511772456) Filed – 29th February 2012 [See: constitutional deprivations pages 43-48]

 Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, US Court of Appeal (25th June 2009)

The flow-on consequence of Rodriguez (above) and Melendez-Diaz  is that expert witnesses must now tender evidence under oath and can be cross-examined.

 Depraved Heart/Depraved Indifference decisions in US Courts

 People v Penfold, Court of Appeals of New York, 2006

“Depraved indifference to human life.”

 People v. Maldonado, 2014 NY Slip Op 04878, 2014 WL 2931529 (July 1, 2014)

The Court held that “assuming the People proffered evidence indicating that defendant was aware of and disregarded the substantial risk of injury or death caused by his driving, they failed to submit evidence establishing that defendant did not care whether grievous harm resulted.”

 In a dissenting opinion by Judge Graffeo and Judge Pigott, Judge Pigott stated that there was“a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury” could find that the defendant “simply did not care whether or not a pedestrian died,” thus demonstrating not just extreme recklessness but also utter indifference to the value of human life.”

Mayes v. The People, Supreme Court of Illinois 106 Ill. 306 (1883)

“Void of social duty and bent on mischief.”- “an abandoned and malignant heart”

 Issue Did the plaintiff need to have specific intent in order to be charged with Murder?

Holding – No.

Rule – If you have general malicious recklessness, disregarding any and all consequences…It is sufficient that he manifested a reckless, murderous position….

Reasoning –  It was implied that by statute, when no considerable provocation appears, or when all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart…it will be murder.

–          If you do something that is so reckless and has no disregard for someone, and you cause death, you do not have to how concurrence…

–          Hence, grievous bodily harm (Reckless or negligent)

  • You don’t really need m/r for this category.

–          Murder on an account of previous malice, even though did intend to kill his wife.

Disposition – Affirmed.

 People v. Feingold, Court of Appeals of New York, 7 N.Y.3d 288 (2006), 852 N.E.2d 1163

819 N.Y.S.2d 691 “…factual setting in which the risk creating conduct must occur.”

  The People rely on Register, asserting that depraved indifference refers not to the mens rea or the actus reus of the crime but to the “factual setting in which the risk creating conduct must occur.” In People v Register, after a night of drinking, defendant shot a man fatally for no explained reason. Defendant was acquitted of intentional murder but convicted of depraved indifference murder. In a 4-3 decision, a majority of this Court concluded that the Legislature did not intend that a mens rea element beyond mere recklessness be included in the definition of depraved indifference murder. “The concept of depraved indifference was retained in the new statute [adopted in 1965] not to function as a mens rea element, but to objectively define the circumstances which must exist to elevate a homicide from manslaughter to murder” (People v Register, 60 NY2d at 278). The three dissenters, however, contended that the predecessor statutes to Penal Law 125.25 (2) defined depraved indifference as a mens rea and that depraved mind and depraved indifference “connote a culpable mental state” (60 NY2d at 282).

 People v Sanchez (98 NY2d 373 [9th July 2002]), 777 N.E.2d 204, 748 N.Y.S.2d 312

 “…depraved indifference murder”

The jury found the defendant not guilty of intentional murder but guilty of depraved indifference murder… Relying on People v Register, the majority of a divided court concluded that although the gun had been fired at point-blank range, it was fired at an angle, the shooting was instantaneous and impulsive, and the jury could have concluded that the“defendant’s homicidal level of mental culpability was reckless rather than intentional” (98 NY2d at 378). In dissent, Judge G.B. Smith stated, “To uphold the conviction of depraved indifference murder in this case is to authorize the substitution of depraved indifference murder for intentional murder at any time that a person shoots and kills another” (98 NY2d at 393).  In dissent, Judge Rosenblatt stated that “by holding the facts at hand sufficient to establish depraved indifference murder, the majority leaves no conceivable circumstances under which a charge of intentional murder will not be amenable to a conviction for depraved indifference murder” (98 NY2d at 394).

 Mens rea? – The Brandis Confession evaluated in the context of People v Sanchez

Re: “The jury found the defendant not guilty of intentional murder but guilty of depraved indifference murder”. On February 20th 2017, Attorney-General Brandis, said  “mistakes” had had “terrible human consequences” that he justified as “appropriate compliance measures.”  This was a depraved heart – reckless indifference response to an unreported, secretly classified, officially irrelevant death toll that may now exceed 100,000.


It is standard procedure for Australian federal politicians and sections of the mass media to mislead the public with spurious claims a that a ‘data-mismatch’ between the Australian Tax Office computer system  and Centrelink’s 35-year-old computer is valid legal justification for demanding that welfare recipients provide a satisfactory explanation for the cause of this mismatch within 21-days and that if this not provided that the Department of Human Services is then justified in automatically withholding a proportion of welfare payments until the alleged debt is repaid.

  1. In law, this systemic activity is a criminal abuse of power commonly known as fraud and all fatalities caused by this criminal activity are culpable homicides stemming from the commission of a State-sanctioned criminal abuses of power.
  2. There are an infinite number of reasons for a data mismatch, starting with violations of federal data protection laws by either the Australian Tax Office or by Centrelink, or by both agencies, which could result in the imposition of a $1,2000,000.
  3. Determining the facts of the matter is, as per the High Court’s Hellicar decision at 141 – 143, a matter for the courts, not politicians, public servants or the mass media.
  4. Rodriguez v. City Of Houston, and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts in the United States and the ‘Nolle prosequi’ outcome of Keogh v R in South Australia are but 3 examples of a major problem being confronted by courts around the world, i.e. the challenges posed by technical evidence that may or may not be credible, relevant and significant.
  5. In Australia, the willingness of some Administrative Appeals Tribunal conference registrars to disregard extremely unreliable technical evidence and to hold welfare recipients accountable for alleged debts regardless of either the facts of the matter or procedural fairness principles, is a compounding factor that renders the AAT process invalid.
  6. In AAT appeals where conference registrars ignore the unreliability of Centrelink’s ‘data-mismatch’ errors, the lack of knowledge by welfare recipients about the unreliability of technical evidence leaves them vulnerable to serious miscarriages of justices.

Given the legal complexities posed by technical evidence that were mentioned by Justice Thomas Cromwell, a Canadian Supreme Court judge, in the 2011 Macfadyen Lecture, without appropriately qualified experts, (as per the generic definition contained in the US Justice College’s publication “The Reference Manual of Scientific Evidence, Third Edition), to support appellant welfare recipients in AAT appeals, these appellants are the proverbial ‘lambs to the slaughter’.

Extracts from the Scottish Council of Law Reporting The Macfadyen Lecture – 2011

The Challenges of Scientific Evidence.

The Honourable Thomas A. Cromwell.

 [At 1] “Attempts to bring scientific learning and expertise to bear on legal disputes give rise to many sorts of problems.  There is concern about the time and expense required to obtain and present expert testimony.  There is concern about the objectivity of expert witnesses:  are their opinions unduly influenced by the litigant paying their fees? “

 [At 61] In Canada, the National Judicial Institute (NJI) has offered specialized programs and segments of larger programs designed to assist judges in understanding the fundamental principles of scientific investigation as well as the basics of some commonly encountered areas of scientific evidence.  The Goudge Report recommended that the Institute consider developing additional programs for judges to assist them in better understanding threshold reliability and the scientific method in determining the admissibility of expert evidence.

 [At 62] One of the NJI programs led to development of a list of important questions that judges should ask themselves in considering the reliability of scientific evidence and which, when appropriate, might form the basis of questions to a proposed expert.118  The questions are these:

 Is the evidence science?

    1. Are there first-hand observations made about facts?
    2. Are these observations reliable in the sense that they are precisely defined, in precise contexts and reproducible?
    3. Are there clear criteria for acceptance and rejection of results?

 Is the methodology, application, process or technique unusual, disputed or new?

 Is the proposed evidence good science?

    • . Is what is being observed adequately linked to what is being reasoned? (Construct validity)
  1. Are there equally plausible alternative conclusions? (Internal validity)
  2. Do the observations always measure the same thing? Have they been replicated?  Is there corroboration? (Reliability, in the scientific sense) Are the conclusions generally applicable to other situations? (External validity)
  3. Is the evidence reliable in the legal sense?
    • . Does the technique do what it purports to do?
  4. Is this witness capable of applying those techniques?
  5. Has the witness properly applied the technique in this instance?

 A question of law: How many of the federal politicians and public servants who claim that data-mismatches are caused by welfare recipients meet the ‘Qualified Expert’ criteria as set out in the United States College of Justice handbook for judges, i.e. the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Third Edition: The Admissibility of Expert Testimony? (See End Note) The following example places the issues raised in Justice Cromwell’s speech in the real-world context of the Robo-Debt Digital Data Fiction fraud. A former Human Service Minister, Senator Marisse Payne, made some insightful comments that call into question the validity of the automated Robo-Debt policies and practices. These statements seen at the following Fee-for-access web link:

 Note carefully the technical issues identified by Senator Payne who was providing The Australian with technical information that Department of Human Services officials had previously made known to her during Community Affairs legislation committee hearings and other briefings.

“The current Department of Human Services ICT system has been built up since the early 1980s. It is now a labyrinth of inter­connected systems and code that makes it very difficult to implement even relatively straightforward changes in a timely manner, including changes to our standard letters,” Senator Payne told The Australian. “Because the system has been built up bit by bit over three decades, it is now inflexible and costly to change.”

“The government is now considering a business case to replace the current ICT system and it is my firm belief that we cannot affor­d to keep the status quo.’’ Changes need to be hard-coded into the payments system, which has 99 templates and 5000 pre-set paragraphs to create each personalised piece of mail. They have to be repeated for each type of payment such as the pension, Newstart, Youth Allowance, family tax benefits and Disability Support Pension.”

   “Up to 36 specialist IT teams comprising more than 100 public servants can be required to make and test the system. Updating ­details or a phone number on a letter can take three months and cost $20,000.”

 The last statement, “Updating ­details or a phone number on a letter can take three months and cost $20,000”, can be placed in a real-world context by considering how to change the date in a Microsoft Access 2010 database form:

A 1-minute video on how to change the Date and Time formats in a Microsoft Access database can be seen at:

Using a typical Intel i3, i5 or i7 desktop computer system with Microsoft Access, the above task could be completed in a minute or so. The date-change operation can be done by a clerical assistant, or even a Year 10 high school student, in a matter of seconds. The ease with which a data-change can be made in Microsoft Access is in stark contrast to the 3-months at a cost of $20,000 scenario with Centrelink’s 35-year-old Integrated Social Infrastructure System. The fact that it takes a team of professional programmers 3-months to do this with Centrelink 35-year-old Integrated Social Infrastructure System database provides insight into why this software was never ‘Fit-for-Purpose’.

The original ‘Commonwealth error’ that, in law, should invalidate all of the Robo-Debt claims is the fact that it was not ‘Fit-for-Purpose’ and should never have been purchased in the first instance. The second ‘Commonwealth error’ was that once the operational unsuitability of the Integrated Social Infrastructure System for its intended purpose became apparent, it was not immediately replaced.  The third ‘Commonwealth error’ is the fact that repeated efforts by Department of Human Services information systems managers to replace this system were unsuccessful until 2015 when $1 Billion was finally budgeted to replace a highly inefficient, error-prone manual data entry system that had been causing over-payment errors since it came on-line in some 35-years ago. Decades of struggling to cope with information technology that was ‘Not-fit-for-purpose’ may have been a significant contributing factor in the AATA 904 (2014) finding that:

Mrs. Locke’s contention that (s)he acted in reliance of incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials security recipients. This circumstance is not so unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance” for the purpose of s 1237AAD(b) of the SSA.

 After decades of “Penny-wise, Pound foolish” management of the nation’s welfare IT system by successive federal government administrations, it is a miracle that after 35-years, ‘only’ 1,400,000 people have reportedly received Commonwealth error overpayments.

In the light of the above legal issues relating to the evidentiary reliability of digital data, e.g.  the ATO-Centrelink data mismatch issues, it is perhaps no surprise that Government Ministers unscrupulously promote the Abuse-of-Power viewpoint that welfare recipients must justify such mismatches. Automatically determining that welfare recipients are responsible for data mismatches, without a forensic audit to rule out’ Commonwealth error,’ is almost certainly a criminal abuse of power.  Without a forensic audit being conducted by an appropriately qualified expert*, there is no legally valid Right of Claim that justifies any request being sent to welfare recipients that they explain why a data-mismatch has occurred.

For a period measured in decades, exploiting public ignorance of the complex legal and technical issues underpinning alleged overpayment data-mismatch claims has facilitated the implementation of Digital Data Fiction Fraud [2D2F] by federal government ministers, public servants and Administrative Appeals Tribunal conference registrars, collectively constitutes a systemic fraud and, as has been stated previous, all of the fatalities triggered by this criminal abuse of power of deaths stemming from the commission of a crime.

Regardless of the actual causes of death in each instance of a Robo-Debt “mistake”, the manner of death is Culpable Homicide. To presume that a government that has engaged in, or is currently engaging in, the systemic defrauding and murder of welfare recipients would not also engage in other corrupt activities such as the removal of financial industry regulations that were intended to protect consumers from unscrupulous, or blatantly fraudulent conduct is to assume facts that may not be in evidence.

 End Notes:

* Is the Expert Qualified?

“As a threshold matter, the witness must be qualified as an expert to present expert opinion testimony. An expert needs more than proper credentials, whether grounded in “skill, experience, training or education” as set forth in Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

A proposed expert must also have “knowledge. For example, an expert who seeks to testify about the findings of epidemiological studies must be knowledgeable about the results of the studies and must take into account those studies that reach conclusions contrary to the position the expert seeks to advocate.”


Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Third Edition: “The Admissibility of Expert Testimony”, Pages 22 – 23.

Professor Margaret A. Berger J.D. (Deceased)

Trustee Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, New York.

[Note: Bold and underline emphasis added to the above quote.]

 Skills, Education, Training & Knowledge: Am I an ‘Expert’?

  • 35-years of computing experience including computer systems assembly.
  • Post-graduate research thesis on microcomputers in farm business management.
  • Former CES Job Club Manger and ISIS trained Job Network Recruitment Consultant.
  • Lay-advocate and author of three Senate suppressed reports re Centrelink fraud.

[1]  Slipper v Turner [2015[ ACTSC 27 (26 February 2015)

[2]  Ibid, Page 1

This entry was posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Part 48: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity. An email to the Financial Services Royal Commission pointing out why that is only one form of rape that the Redress Commission may have to deal with.

  1. says:

    thank you for keeping me on your mailing list! good work!

    Les-zek Shyman-Szymanski, Ph.D. Author, historian, journalist, editor Ph.D. History (PUNO=London), M. Political Science (California State University), B.A. General (London University)

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