Australia’s Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders are again being exposed by the ABC.
The following text exposed a shocking 2,030 Robo Debt fatalities, which are murders under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute of the International Court, was posted on the Internet at 1.32 PM on 19th February 2019 by a Triple J Hack journalist, Shaliah Medora.
The 0.21% Robo Debt Death Toll
That appalling statistic conceals the massive scale of Australia’s brutal, viciously deadly, unconstitutional and human rights violating policies and practices which are putting the Australian Parliament on a collision course with the international criminal justice system.
Prompt action is required to prevent more of these murders from occurring.
Please share this short link: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1gz
Since the Morrison Government, which may not want to explain genocide and crimes against humanity to the International Court, can order that the ABC’s Triple J posting shown below be deleted, in the national interest, especially the interest of the many relatives of murdered welfare recipients, the text initially posted by Ms. Medora is also posted below as an alternate backup.
THE TRIPLE J HACK SOURCE URL IS:
More than 2030 people died after receiving a Centrelink debt notice, also known as robo-debt, according to new data released by the Department of Human Services.
Of those, 429 – roughly one-fifth – were aged under 35.
The figures cover a period from July 2016 to October 2018. To give you a comparison, there were 3139 deaths of people aged between 15 and 35 in 2016 overall, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
While the department does not collect data on the cause for death in these cases, nearly a third – 663 people – were classified as “vulnerable”, which means they had complex needs like mental illness, drug use or were victims of domestic violence. Greens Senator Rachel Siewert, who asked the Department for the information, told Hack that there could be more people with vulnerabilities than what is reflected in the official stats.
“Because of the way the system works at the moment, people don’t feel confident or don’t feel safe or trust the person that they’re reporting to to flag that they feel vulnerable, or flag that they might have poor mental health at the time,” she said. Senator Siewert also said evidence from a Senate inquiry into the system found that getting a debt notice when you’ve done nothing wrong can bring on depression or anxiety.
“People talk about feeling stressed and anxious through the system, feeling humiliated and they get depressed.”
“That sets alarm bells for me, the high proportion of people with vulnerabilities,” she said.
MY COMMENT: SENATOR SIEWERT HAS BEEN AWARE OF THE MOUNTING DEATH TOLL FOR ALMOST A DECADE. IT MAY WELL BE THAT NOW THAT SHE COMPREHENDS THE VAST SCALE OF THE ROBO DEBT MURDERS, IT IS NOW POSSIBLE THAT SHE HAS FINALLY RE-DISCOVERED THE FACT THAT SHE HAS LEGAL OBLIGATIONS TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS.
The vast majority of people who died were still receiving Centrelink payments at the time of their deaths. Responsibility for Centrelink lies with the Department of Human Services. More than 500 people who died were receiving Newstart payments, and a further 520 were on the Disability Support Pension. Men were twice as likely to die than women.
MY COMMENT: SENATOR SIEWERT WAS DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON FOR THE SENATE’S COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE AND THEN CHAIRPERSON FOR THE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS REFERENCE COMMITTEE.
IN BOTH POSITIONS, SHE HAD SENATE OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND HAD DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF THE HUMAN IMPACT OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL, HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATING POLICIES AND PRACTICES. AS THE LETTER BELOW REVEALS, THE GREENS KNEW ABOUT CENTRELINK DRIVEN SUICIDES A DECADE AGO IN 2006 BUT IGNORED THE RISING DEATH TOLL.
AS THE FOLLOWING LETTERS REVEAL, SENATOR SIEWERT HAD PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE RISING, (secret classified and offcially “irrelevant”) DEATH TOLL CAUSED BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL WELFARE POLICIES AND PRACTICES.
Minister says there’s no link
A spokesperson for Human Services Minister, Michael Keenan, told Hack the automatic debt notice process is “reasonable, lawful and fair”.
They said the department had sent out 900,000 discrepancy notices – that is, a letter asking the welfare recipient to explain why the info they’ve given doesn’t match what the department has. That doesn’t always lead to a formal debt notice because the recipients of the letter can provide additional information that clears the discrepancy.
“Any suggestion that the Department of Human Services’ debt recovery efforts have contributed to customer deaths is simply not supported by the facts or statistics,” the spokesperson said.
“The department sent more than 900,000 debt letters to individuals during the period 1 July 2016 to 31 October 2018. A total of 2030 of those individuals died during the same period, which represents 0.21 per cent.”
CENTRELINK’S FRAUDULENT ROBO DEBT SCAM HAS A ‘NOBLE CAUSE‘ FATALITY RATE OF ‘just’ 0.21%
REMEMBER – 2,753 PEOPLE DIED IN THE 9/11 TWIN TOWERS ATTACK:
SURELY 2,030 DEATHS IN 753 DAYS IS ALSO A MAJOR ACT OF TERRORISM?
MY COMMENT; THERE IS NOTHING REASONABLE OR FAIR ABOUT ROBO DEBT – IT IS A VICIOUSLY BRUTAL, RANDOMLY LETHAL FRAUD THAT DELIBERATELY IGNORES SEVERAL CRUCIAL HIGH COURT DECISIONS CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH ESTABLISHING A LEGITIMATE RIGHT OF CLAIM THAT, WHEN CHALLENGED, BECOMES A MATTER FOR THE COURTS TO DETERMINE THE FACTS UPON WHICH A FAIR DECISION MUST BE BASED.
ROBO DEBT VIOLATES BOTH SECTION 130 (3) AND SECTION 142(2) OF THE COMMONWEALTH CRIMINAL CODE ACT AND THE DEATHS ARE MURDERS UNDER INTERNATIONAL, STATE AND TERRITORY LAWS, e.g. ARTICLE 7(1)(A) OF THE ROME STATUTE, and SECTION 13.7 OF THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT WHICH DEFINES DURESS TRIGGERED SUICIDES AS MURDER.
IT IS A BLATANT LIE BY THOSE SEEKING TO AVOID LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE ROBO DEBT MURDERS.
ROBO DEBT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH “GOOD GOVERNMENT” THAT IS FAIR AND LAWFUL.
ROBO DEBT IS A RANDOMLY KILLING FRAUD THAT IS A MAJOR SYSTEMIC CRIME UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.
WELFARE RECIPIENTS HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY MISLEAD AND DEFRAUDED AT THE RATE OF UP TO 20,000 VICTIMS PER WEEK AND THE DEATHS OF 2,030 PEOPLE IN 28 MONTHS REPRESENTS A POSSIBLE SERIAL MURDER RATE THAT MAY HAVE AVERAGED 1 MURDER EVERY 10 HOURS OVER 753 DAYS.
CALL THE COPS?
The statement that Robo Debt is “reasonable, lawful and fair” is a self-protecting statement made by people whose acts of “Reckless Disregard” for the safety of the public and welfare clients have apparently managed to kill 2,030 innocent people in 28 months.
RE “LAWFUL and FAIR”: That statement reveals that the Robo Debt murders are quite literally State-Sanctioned-Murders in which fraudulent, randomly fatal efforts to recover what may be no-existent debts, have resulted in random fatalities.
As I know from personal experience, calling the cops is an exercise in futility, as the most likely response is likely to be a ‘Noble Cause – Process Corruption’ cover-up of these crimes.
Note: The “inquiry” mentioned above by Federal Agent Denley was conducted by people who had no legal jurisdiction to conduct a serial murder investigation, i.e. the people responsible for the commission of these crimes.
Note the “no response will be provided” statement. no matter how many times politicians rort the public purse or defraud and murder welfare recipients, the Federal Police are going to abide by “government protocols“, despite the fact that THE CONSTITUTION states that “The laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and the people.”
Given the choice between the Constitution and sucking up to politicians who grant draconian police powers in exchange for no prosecution for fraud, menace, intimidation, exploitation and murder.
The only benefit in filing a complaint is a long term benefit, i.e. when these crimes are finally investigated , the people who complained will be on-the-record and will (eventually) be able to file a claim for Victims-of-Crime compensation.
Last week I filed a complaint with the South Australian Independent Commissioner Against Corruption.
In addition, on Sunday, 24th February 2019, presented a 5 minute mini-preview of the following video to the congregation of Playford Baptist Church.
In July 2008, the Commonwealth, states and territories agreed to harmonize work health and safety (WHS) laws across Australia, because the legislation developed over the previous century in the various jurisdictions was full of inconsistencies, creating problems for business.
The following extract from the New South Wales Work Health & Safety Act 2011, is common in all states and territories except Western Australia and Victoria:
Reckless conduct—Category 1
(1) A person commits a Category 1 offence if:
(a) the person has a health and safety duty, and
(b) the person, without reasonable excuse, engages in conduct that exposes an individual to whom that duty is owed to a risk of death or serious injury or illness, and
(c) the person is reckless as to the risk to an individual of death or serious injury or illness.
(a) in the case of an offence committed by an individual (other than as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking)—$300,000 or 5 years imprisonment or both, or
(b) in the case of an offence committed by an individual as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking—$600,000 or 5 years imprisonment or both, or
(c) in the case of an offence committed by a body corporate—$3,000,000.
(2) The prosecution bears the burden of proving that the conduct was engaged in without reasonable excuse.
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC HEALTH ACT 2011
This Act is in addition to the above-mentioned Work health & Safety Act. Section 57 and 58 are detailed below:
Part 7—General public health offences
57—Material risk to public health
(1) A person who causes a material risk to public health intentionally or recklessly and
with the knowledge that harm to public health will result is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: $250 000 or imprisonment for 5 years or both.
(2) A person who causes a material risk to public health in circumstances where the
person ought reasonably be expected to know that harm to public health will result is
guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: $120 000 or imprisonment for 2 years or both.A person who causes a material risk to public health is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: $25 000.
Expiation fee: $750.
(4) For the purposes of this section, a material risk to public health occurs if the health
of 1 or more persons has been, or might reasonably be expected to be, harmed by an
act or omission of another, but does not include a case where the harm, or risk of
harm, is trivial or negligible.
58—Serious risk to public health
(1) A person who causes a serious risk to public health intentionally or recklessly and
with the knowledge that harm to public health will result is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: $1 000 000 or imprisonment for 10 years or both.
(2) A person who causes a serious risk to public health in circumstances where the person
ought reasonably be expected to know that harm to public health will result is guilty of
Maximum penalty: $500 000 or imprisonment for 7 years or both.
(3) A person who causes a serious risk to public health is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: $120 000.
(4) For the purposes of this section, a serious risk to public health occurs if there is a
material risk that substantial injury or harm to the health of 1 or more persons has
occurred, or might reasonably be expected to have occurred, taking into account—
(a) the nature, scale and effects of the harm, and any associated illness, injury or
disability, that may arise; and
(b) the location, immediacy and seriousness of the threat to human health; and
(c) whether the harm extends to 2 or more persons and, if so, the total number of
persons affected or likely to be affected; and
(d) the availability and effectiveness of any precaution, safeguard, treatment or
other measure that may be used to eliminate or reduce the harm.
59—Defence of due diligence
(1) In any proceedings against a person for an offence under this Part, it is a defence to
prove that the person took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to
prevent the commission of the offence.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), it is not proved that a person took all reasonable
precautions and exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence
under this Part unless it is proved that the person—
(a) had taken reasonable steps to prevent or avoid the circumstances that gave
rise to the risk to public health, including by putting in place any systems or
safeguards that might reasonably be expected to be provided; and
(b) complied with the requirements of any notice or order under this Act that
related to the risk to public health; and
(c) as soon as becoming aware of the circumstances that gave rise to the risk to
public health—(i) reported those circumstances to the Chief Public Health Officer, the
Department or a council; and
(ii) took all reasonable steps necessary to prevent or reduce the risk to public health.
Both politicians and public servants can be held accountable for Reckless conduct breaches of these State and territory laws. With 2,030 Robo Debt deaths over a period of just 28 months to be explained, and the deaths justified by the former federal Attorney-General, George Brandis, on the basis of “appropriate compliance measures” these are plenty of fatalities for every State and Territory coroner and Crime & Corruption Commission to investigate.
WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP TO FINALLY END 30 YEARS OF BRUTALITY THAT INCLUDES GENOCIDE AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY UNDER BOTH LIBERAL-NATIONAL COALITION AND ALP GOVERNMENTS?
Heaps – Share this posting’s shortlink with as many people as you can:
Watch some of these videos:
Australia’s Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders [HD720]
See No Evil – The Grant Stevens Factor
YouTube Dole Bludger Murders Part 1
YouTube Dole Bludger Murders Part 2
YouTube Dole Bludger Murders Part 3
YouTube Dole Bludger Murders Part 4
YouTube Dole Bludger Murders Part 5
“See No Evil?” – The Jacqui Lambie Factor: Part 1
“See No Evil?” – The Jacqui Lambie Factor: Part 2
See no Evil: The Pauline Hanson factor
See no Evil: The Pauline Hanson factor: Part 2
The Emcott Report: The Kingsford Legal Centre Email
An email to Financial Services Royal Commission
The Brandis Confession (The 3 minute clip)
See No Evil: The SAPOL Factor
Williams v Spautz: Glimpses of Genocide
Glimpses of genocide in Australia
Robo Debt: The Brandis Confession
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3oKEsNZ-X4 The Emcott report – Robo Debt Part 1
The Tudge Fudge Fraud Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po6Zkgcq-FA The Tudge Fudge Fraud Part 2
Evidence for the ICC to consider
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RctoEN-ZuE8 Genocide Part 3 – The Culleton Factor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbj-YqB9dTs Genocide Part 1: the Section 42C Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o7ARFnHE9A Genocide Part 2
The Cosgrove Memo: (Slaughtergate Law)
The Chilcot Report: (600,000 now dead)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEfQ7PuBz60 Waivergate Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23bBEfN_H8I Waivergate Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktBNxr7iY7E Waivergate Part 3
The Others DVD Update Edition
Case Study: Centrelink rips off welfare recipients
Centrelink hassles – fight back and win
Centrelink prosecutions – bunging a spanner in the works.
Are Centrelink penalties constitutional?
Centrelink and the 6 week Rule
Murder by Federal Legislation
Centrelink and Job Network complaints
Centrelink’s secret breaching death toll.
Ronald Medlicott. registered teacher and a volunteer Christian lay-advocate.