In order to draw the attention of the world to the genocidal conduct of the Australian Federal Parliament, I have sought help from James Carver, a member of the European Parliament.
Note: the short link for this posting is: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1jx
The text of my appeal for the European Parliament’s sub-committee on Human Rights to look at what is happening in Australia is set out below.
I would point out that any welfare recipient who hold dual citizenship in a European Union country can do what I have done, i.e. select a representative of the European Parliament who serves on the Human Rights Committee and appeal to them for help in ending the crimes being committed by the Australian Parliament.
THE MAYDAY EMAIL TO JAMES CARVER
Ronald Medlicott 40 Siddall Road Elizabeth Vale South Australia 5112, 11th April 2019
Dear Mr. Carver,
Re: The unthinkable; the reality of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity being committed by the Australian Federal parliament on behalf of her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of Australia.
In my MAYDAY email on the 9th April 2019, at Issue #4, I drew your attention to extracts from page 14 of the Hansard Minutes for the Senate’s Community Affairs Reference Committee (CARC) meeting that was held on 8th March 2019. The following extracts, which are from pages 1 and 2 of the same Hansard Minutes of that meeting provide chilling insight into how the Australian Federal Parliament has successfully mislead over 900,000 vulnerable people; successfully defrauded over 400,000 of these people of almost $3 Billion and, worst of all, at this point in time appears to have succeeded in not being held accountable for the murders of over 2,000 people.
The following comments, which have been bullet-pointed for clarity and emphasis, were made by Dr. Cassandra Goldie, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Council of Social Service. It is my contention that these statements, constitute credible, relevant evidence that is of grave significance in underscoring the matter of fact that under the leadership of the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and the leadership of the current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, between the 1st July 2016 and the 31st October 2018, the Australian Federal Government deliberately set out to defraud hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients and, in the commission of those crimes, callously murdered over 2,000 people.
We know this Online Compliance Intervention program has affected, in one way or another, at least 200,000 people around the country.
We know that towards the end of last year 20,000 letters were sent out by the department every single week.
This is since November 2016. Using the government’s own figures, we know at least 20 per cent of these so-called discrepancy notices, generated automatically, are in fact incorrect.
What we do not know is how many more have been sent in error.
We do not know how many have been sent that have alleged debts that do not in fact exist.
We do not believe we know how many debts have been pursued that were higher than what was actually owed.
We certainly do not know how many people have entered into agreements to repay debts that they did not owe, or certainly a level of debt that they did not owe.
And we do not know in how many cases people have entered into debt repayment arrangements that they simply cannot afford.
The impact of this ‘robo-debt’ system, as it has been come to be known, has been to cause extensive distress and suffering right across the community, with thousands of people affected.
The full scale of this, as I said, hit just seven weeks out from the end of the year, from Christmas.
We know that in the community this is overwhelmingly a time when financial pressure is very real for households, and most particularly for people who have interaction with the social security system—many of whom are on low incomes or in otherwise vulnerable circumstances.
It should also not go unnoticed that when this kind of program is unleashed on the scale that it was just weeks before the end of the year, it was at a time when legal services and other services were typically understaffed.
In many cases, this created an extremely difficult situation in terms of being able to respond as rapidly as we would have liked to. We know that thousands of people have been worried sick about receiving these kind of notices.
We also know that, because of the communications from the responsible minister in the lead-up to this program being unleashed, there has been a perception created that if you do not comply you may go to jail.
This has been completely unacceptable in terms of the tone associated with this exercise.
We believe that the first time over 6,500 people heard about an allegation of having a Centrelink debt was from a debt collector because the department had sent letters to old addresses.
We have heard many stories about the behaviour of debt collectors, which has been completely inappropriate. It is certainly important for the Senate inquiry to get the bottom of this.
We believe the actions of the government have culminated in creating a serious climate of fear around this program.
We note that as chair of this inquiry, Senator, you have made the protections associated with people giving evidence before you very clear.
We have today, again, expressed our serious concern that by releasing public details to the media that are associated with a person commenting about Centrelink matters, it has had a major chilling effect and created a real climate of concern for people that if they speak up their private information may be provided to the media.
When this program was first announced in the context of budget savings, ACOSS warned the government that in setting a large target—we believe it is about $4 billion of overall revenue to be pursued—and pursuing it in an aggressive way, it would lead to deep distress and human damage.
Our warnings were not heeded. We have always said that if there is an overpayment received by a person involved with Centrelink, then any kind of debt collection process associated with that must be done in a fair, humane and just way, taking into account the individual circumstances of people affected by it.
The extraordinary result of this auto data-matching system is that the government has used its extensive and extraordinary powers to completely shift the onus of proof from Centrelink on to the individual when investigating whether or not a debt exists.
It has created a dragnet approach and we believe that its core features have overwhelmingly operated as an abuse of government power.
We know that there are thousands of people who have been forced to try and track down evidence of their fortnightly income, in many cases going back over six years.
This has created impossible circumstances for many people with the spectre of them being pursued for a debt that they do not believe they owe if they do not comply. We believe stories of depression, anxiety, fear and frustration will be heard by senators.
It has also completely ignored the understandable implications for people who do need assistance to deal with this kind of pursuit of alleged debts on services, particularly community legal centres.
I do not think the committee should ignore the fact that this particular budget saving measure, which we clearly believe is the bigger context for this, should ignore that this is in addition to serious cuts that are being made through the federal budget processes to community services generally and to community legal services in particular.
As soon as the program was unleashed, as quickly as we could, we urged the minister to halt this system, to shut it down and to bring together people from across the community with deep expertise to look at the way in which we could ensure that technology and data matching could be used in a way that was beneficial to people interacting with social security.
We believe that, if designed well, this can be achieved, but this has clearly not been done in the way that this system has been designed.
The system has completely stripped out any human participation in terms of the careful assessment of whether a debt is owed and the appropriate level of engagement with an individual before any kind of debt process is pursued.
We do not believe the minor changes that the minister announced early in January have addressed the fundamental flaws in this program, so again today we will be submitting to you that the system needs to be shut down.
The government needs to conduct an investigation to ensure that, where people have entered into arrangements to repay debts that they did not owe, appropriate and immediate action is taken to reverse that.
There needs to be an investigation into the impacts on people at the human level to ensure that appropriate compensation is provided or action is taken to ensure that people’s wellbeing is at the heart of this inquiry.
Finally, we believe that it is vital that the government and the committee get to the bottom of how this happened. Who was responsible, what were the processes that led to this extraordinarily damaging outcome, and how do we ensure that, as we look to secure the benefits of technology, this never happens again?
There most definitely does need to be an investigation, but not by the Australian Government, or by any Australian law enforcement agency.
The actions described by Dr. Goldie are acts of State-sanctioned-terror that constitute genocidal crimes against humanity on a holocaust scale. I would remind you again of the statement by the former Australian Federal Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis QC:
“Now, this system involves a review of potentially millions of transfer payments, so of course there will be mistakes made, and I agree with what Piers Ackermann said, that when mistakes are made and they have terrible human consequences, then off course that’s a tragedy. But we do have to have appropriate compliance measures and the idea of data matching, introduced by Hawke and the idea of automated letters being sent to people when there is a discrepancy evident from the data-matching between the ATO data and the Centrelink data; it was introduced by you, is not a bad system. The methodology that has been used by this government is the same methodology that we inherited from you.”
Senator Brandis made it quite clear that any fatalities caused by the automated ‘Robo-Debt’ collection system were an acceptable consequence, at least to himself, because they were justified by the need for what he termed “appropriate compliance measures”. However, as I have pointed out in some of the videos that I have posted on YouTube, there is absolutely nothing appropriate about these measures as they violate binding High Court decisions and Crown Law criminal law and public safety statutes. Four of Australia’s 6 States, Queensland, New south Wales, Tasmania and South Australia, the Northern Territory and the Australian capital territory share common legislation with their Work Health Safety Acts.
Section 31 of the South Australian Work Health & Safety Act states:
31—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; (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;
(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.
32—Failure to comply with health and safety duty—Category 2
A person commits a Category 2 offence if—
(a) the person has a health and safety duty; and
(b) the person fails to comply with that duty; and
(c) the failure exposes an individual to a risk 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)—$150 000;
(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—$300 000;
(c) in the case of an offence committed by a body corporate—$1 500 000.
33—Failure to comply with health and safety duty—Category 3
A person commits a Category 3 offence if—
(a) the person has a health and safety duty; and
(b) the person fails to comply with that duty.
(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)—$50 000;
(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—$100 000;
(c) in the case of an offence committed by a body corporate—$500 000.
In Insight #7 of my email on 9th April 2019, I pointed out that a welfare allowance was a constitutional right and yet, on 1st July 2016, he Majesty’s appointed representative in Australia, Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove, gave Royal Assent to an unconstitutional, reckless dangerous, human rights violating statutory amendment, i.e. the “Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker compliance)Act 2015, a Bill that altered Section 42C of the Social Security Act to strengthen the supposedly legitimate ‘right’ of the Federal Government to deprive impoverished people of the right to subsist, i.e. the right to survive.
Subdivision B—No show no pay failures
42C No show no pay failures
(1) The Secretary may determine that a person commits a no show
no pay failure on a day if:
(a) the person commits any of the following failures:
(i) the person fails to participate, on the day, in an activity that
the person is required to undertake by an employment
pathway plan that is in force in relation to the person;
(ii) the person fails to comply, on the day, with a serious failure requirement imposed on the person;
This law is unconstitutional, for any determination of the primary facts of the matter in an alleged ‘Breach of Contract’ or a ‘Compliance Failure’ is a matter for a court to determine. In addition, the penalty imposed is “cruel and inhumane” depriving a person of their sole means of subsistence violates both human rights treaty obligations and Australian statute laws dealing with criminal acts of reckless endangerment. The express purpose of this legislation, as is indicated in the title of the Bill put to the Australian Federal Parliament, was to deliberately place lives in peril for the express purpose of enforcing compliance with other unconstitutional statutes, e.g. Work for the Dole. The legislation is an unconstitutional, criminal act, an aggravated threat to life, that poses a clear and present danger to life. However, as the March 2006 letter from the Australian Senate’s Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Reference Committee (EWRE) made quite clear, any fatalities caused by Australia’s unconstitutional laws are “irrelevant”.
It is my contention that in addition to violating every Crown Law homicide statute in Australia, these so-called “irrelevant” fatalities are murders under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute. Indeed, the Section 42C amendment that Governor-General Cosgrove gave Royal assent too on 1st July 2016 violates a raft of provisions within Article 6 (Genocide) and Article 7 (Crimes against Humanity) of the Rome Statute. The word “attack” is usually associated with physical violence, e.g. force of arms. However, Segregation in the southern states of the United States of America and Apartheid in South Africa are two examples of the use of legislation to attack the human rights of a targeted societal group. In Australia, legislation is used to attack and endanger the right to life of a very clearly defined societal group, i.e. welfare recipients. The use of harsh, unconstitutional legislation that violates the following Articles of the Rome Statute is Standard Operating Procedure to such an extent, that, as has been mentioned previously deaths caused by these laws are contemptuously regarded as “irrelevant” not only by politicians, public servants, and the mass media, but also by every law enforcement agency in Australia with whom I have raised these issues, e.g. the Australian crime Commission and the Australian Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission.
Article 6: Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about
its physical destruction in whole or in part;
[7.1] For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
As I sure you are fully aware, Article 7(1)(k) is the ‘catch-all’ provision for all potential forms of harm caused by national governments that lose sight of the fact that State-sanctioned- acts-of-Harm are a serious crime, i.e. an Act of State Terrorism.
Mr. Carver, you cannot serve effectively on the European Parliament’s Sub-Committee on Human Rights whilst European Union citizens who reside in Australia, along with vulnerable Australian born citizens, are being persecuted and randomly slaughtered on a holocaust scale by the Australian Federal Parliament. To ignore this politically driven humanitarian disaster would be a totally unconscionable and reprehensible act of omission on your part that would dishonour both yourself and the European Parliament.
In my last email, I requested that you contact the office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court to ascertain whether-or-not they had received my request for an investigation into the Robo-Debt (Mark 2) Massacre of over 2,000 welfare recipients.
My very grave concern is that since I have not been contacted to provide detailed information about the genocidal conduct of the Australian Parliament, it is possible that my email communication was unlawfully intercepted by an Australian security agency for the express purpose of protecting the Australian parliament from accountability by the international community for the commission of crimes against humanity.
The world must no longer ignore the very overt commission of genocide and crimes against humanity that has been occurring in Australia for decades. Australia’s vulnerable, the unemployed, the aged and the impaired, desperately need the European Parliament’s human rights committee to focus the world’s attention to the silent holocaust that is occurring in Australia.
Please, help us.
Ronald Medlicott. Registered teacher and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.