The role of Australia’s mass media regulations in the death of Jacintha Saldanha: Part 3d: The lethal failure of Noblesse Oblige`.

The all to often lethal failure of Noblesse Oblige` and its role in the death of Jacintha Saldanha.:  This is a letter sent to Her Excellency, Quentin Bryce AC, the            Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, at Government House,             Dunrossil Drive, Yarralumma. ACT 2600 on 2nd January 2013.

(NOTE: Some minor typos in the letter to the Governor-General, i.e. missing words or letters, have been corrected but the basic content  has not been altered.)

Your Excellency,

I am making a series of submissions to the inquest into the death of Jacintha Saldanha and one of the certified documents that I shall be providing to the City of London Coroner, Paul Matthews, is a copy of a letter from your office which makes it quite clear that you were aware of the grave concerns that welfare recipients had died as a result of the misuse of lawful authority.

The public discussion paper that I provided to you in September 2009 made it quite clear that breaching legislation had triggered an unreported death toll that over time may have accumulated to the point where it was 2 – 4 times the 9/11 death toll as a result of suicides and strokes, etc.

  1. In March 2010, the Senate inquiry into the ‘Roofgate’ disaster very kindly provided me with yet another ‘don’t copy, don’t distribute’ suppression order after I pointed that the 4 ‘Roofgate’ deaths paled in comparison to the death toll from the Howard Government’s illegal enforcement of breaching quotas at the turn-of-the-century.
  2.  Just 6 weeks later, Centrelink’s Assistant Secretary Neil Skill made the appalling but remarkably candid admission that “Centrelink does not collect Post Breaching Fatalities Statistics…” and therefore could not provide them to me.
  3. That admission opens the door to a Federal Court challenge to Centrelink’s refusal to make this information available.
  4. The most logical and obvious grounds for such a legal challenge is that wilfully depriving welfare recipients of their lives in order to save taxpayer’s money constitutes the ultimate violation of human rights.

Whilst that point may seem to be extremely obvious, the simple reality is that in 2009 you failed to act on the knowledge that Centrelink officials had been concealing this death toll and it is my contention that your failure to act was a contributory factor in the cascade of seemingly unrelated events, that like raindrops pooling into a rushing flood, swept away the life of Jacintha Saldanha.

Having expressed those views in a formal submission to the City of London Coroner, for the sake of the Queen whom you represent, you must either acknowledge the merit of points expressed in that submission or else rebutt them. To stay silent is to tacitly tell the world that the allegations in the submission are accurate and are of significant merit.

As it now stands, one of the problems faced by Metropolitan Police investigators at New Scotland Yard is the very real prospect of having to knock on the door of Buckingham Palace and say, “Excuse me Your Royal Highness, can you please tell us what you know about a series of suicides in Australia that preceded the suicide of Jacintha Saldanha?”

I do not make that statement in jest. You were informed of this pattern of fatalities and failed to take appropriate action. As the Queen’s representative, your failure to act was therefore also the Her Majesty’s failure to act!

Fair Game – Dead Meat: Mass Murder by Proxy.

 With breaching triggered fatalities we are basically dealing with a blatant atrocity that involved the nation’s powerful elite, i.e. federal politicians and bureaucrats who, misusing their lawful authority, literally committing mass murder by proxy. Breaching legislation deliberately targeted the weak and powerless for the ostensible purpose of saving money. The more basic reality was that it was a cynical move by political parties to suck up to the prejudices of voters who have been brain washed by the mass media into believing that welfare recipients are just a bunch of lazy, cheating “dole bludgers” who are living the easy life by “riding the welfare gravy train” at taxpayer’s expense. The real truth is that whilst the welfare gravy train is a myth, the welfare death train is a chilling reality that is an official State Secret.

Breaching legislation was an ultra-extremist approach to the problem of containing the rising financial cost caused by structural unemployment. This ultra-extremist approach created its own holocaust style of ethics, i.e. a reckless indifference to the plight of those who were the victims of the recklessly dangerous and unconstitutional breaching activity. This legislation had absolutely nothing to do with Duty of Care or Duty of Agency, and every time a Governor-General signed off on breaching legislation the Crown’s Noblesse Oblige` obligations were unceremoniously booted out the door without a moment’s though for the potentially lethal consequences of the legislation being signed into law.

Breaching legislation was literally mass murder by federal legislation. The 2002 Abbott/Vanstone inspired definition of breaching in my 2009 report to you made it quite clear that breaching was;

“The targeted, and therefore deliberate removal of the only means of support from fragile, vulnerable, financially impoverished people so that, for a period of 3 months, they were unable to meet even the most basic costs of living.”

 You do not need to be a Rhodes Scholar to know that when you do that a million times in just over 4 years, people who are even more vulnerable and emotionally fragile than Jacintha Saldanha could respond by committing suicide, but a former Rhodes Scholar, Tony Abbott did fail to comprehend this!

As a consequence, it is reasonable to consider the impact of what happened to welfare recipients during the period that Tony Abbott was John Howard’s Employment Minister. How many breached welfare recipients did not resume receiving welfare benefits because they were prematurely deceased, i.e. dead because of suicide, fatal heart attacks, or strokes, or ‘natural causes’ such as an Asthma attack that proved to be fatal because the victim had no money with which to buy a life preserving Ventolin puffer or a steroid based puffer!

I repeat my 2009 viewpoint; breaching was a deliberate, extremely reckless act of endangerment and those who were responsible for this killing of welfare recipients knew precisely what they were doing!

As stated in my submission to the City of London coroner, there was a culture of reckless indifference by politicians and bureaucrats to the consequences of what they were doing; their only concern was that the nation’s uninformed and disinterested voters did find out what was going on.

That explains why Neil Skill wrote that “Centrelink does not collect Post Breaching Terminal Outcomes Statistics” and consequently could not provide this information.

  1. Those responsible for the Centrelink customer database and the preparation of reports, daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual, deliberately avoided collecting this data in order to conceal these fatalities from the Federal Parliament.
  2. By doing so, they provided the politicians who created this reprehensible legislation with good old-fashioned “Plausible Deniability.”
  3. Whilst that might have seemed like a good idea at the time, concealing the death toll both allowed it to continue to rise whilst at the same time, unknowingly, South Australia’s long dormant and virtually unknown Felony Murder statute was constantly being violated by this official secrecy!
  4. The clear message from the trial and conviction of Josiah Finch in February 2006 was that those who knew about these fatalities and concealed the underlying cause, were violating this law.
  5.  Given that the South Australian Premier at that time, Mike Rann, and the South Australian Director of Prosecutions, Steve Pallaris, were also aware of these fatalities and yet chose to remain silent, the trial of Josiah Finch was a gross travesty of justice.
  6. Especially since the underlying reason for charging Josiah Finch with Felony Murder was to demonstrate to South Australian voters that the Rann Government was “tough on crime.
  7. With a state election due in mid-March 2006 and the Liberal Opposition running a “Rann is soft on crime” election campaign, Mike Rann desperately needed a show trial and Josiah Finch’s refusal to disclose who fired the shot that killed Karim Morrison was a perfect fit!

The significance of ACMA Report 2780 and the sample news items provided to the inquest into the death of Jacintha Saldanha is that the mass media knew precisely what was happening and actively condoned this activity by doing what the 7 Network producers and editors did, i.e. they decided that this death toll was not news worthy. Given that the media had a virtual feeding frenzy over Peter Garrett’s failure to report the 4 ‘Roofgate’ fatalities to Federal Parliament, this disgusting display of double standards is in itself empirical evidence of the mass media’s approval of the breaching triggered fatalities.

Further evidence of the media’s approval of these deaths is provided by the fact that various mass media entities, e.g. News Ltd., actively engaged in the deliberate defamatory demonization of welfare recipients which only served to undermine the morale of these already vulnerable people. What ACMA Report 2780 did was very effectively cover-up the fact that the 7 Network had chosen to conceal these fatalities; the report thus endorsed the 7 Network decision and in doing so empirically demonstrated that ACMA investigators who handled this case were also totally and recklessly indifferent to what was happening.

Report 2729, which was released in May 2012, only provided further empirical proof that the ACMA was,  with reckless indifference to the consequences of vilification by the mass media, officially endorsing the way in which the mass media was supporting the deliberate demonizing of people, who through circumstances beyond their control, were already vulnerable to predatory behaviour.

 In the light of Jacintha Saldanha’s death, when you read this report, you have to wonder about what planet are these people living on for it is abundantly clear they have absolutely no concept of the idea that when you deliberately demean, debase and demonize emotionally fragile people, the effect can be so traumatizing that as a consequence of this extremist  behaviour some of the victims of this vilification may be driven over the edge and respond by committing suicide!

  1. The ACMA is a Crown agency that is directly responsible to a Crown Minister, Senator Conroy, and therefore legally, what the ACMA Report 2729 did was officially give Crown endorsement to broadcasting activity that helps to increase the suicide rate in the ranks of Australia’s unemployed.
  2. So much for Noblesse Oblige`.

 In effect, the mass media was endorsing the proxy murder of welfare recipients that was/is triggered by breaching penalties that wilfully place(d) impoverished people in extremis and, pro quid pro, federal politicians had set in place a “cowboy country – anything goes” regulatory environment in which the mass media would not be held accountable for joining in the great game. Empirical evidence that politicians, bureaucrats and the mass media saw this ruthless exploitation of welfare recipients as a “game” is provided in chapter 3 of Centrelink’s FY 2001-02 annual report where data covering “Savings” achieved through breaching quotas, sorry, Performance Indicator Targets, was presented as the “Scorecard.

That the use of this flippant and demeaning term was tolerated without attracting condemnation from any of the Opposition politicians or from any sections of the commercial mass media is disturbing proof that this word was deemed to be a perfectly acceptable way to report the consequences of breaching activity, i.e. it is further evidence of the culture of reckless indifference that exists with the Australian Federal Parliament, the Public Service and the mass media.

  1. Effectively, welfare recipients were fair game, and as a direct result of murder by proxy, i.e. suicides, and traumatic stress ‘events’ such heart attacks, strokes and asthma attacks, far too many were winding up as “dead meat “.
  2.  Neil Skill’s “Centrelink does not collect…” statement makes it quite clear that until Centrelink discloses just how many of the people who were breached never resumed receiving a welfare benefit when the breaching penalty period expired  because they were deceased, the precise tally of fatalities will not be known!

This is the cultural environment in which Australia’s mass media is currently allowed to operate and it is reasonably foreseeable that in today’s ‘global village’, once that attitude jumped the fence and moved into the wider world, then other sensitive people could be hurt with possible fatal consequences.

It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that by failing to constraint the “cowboy country – anything goes – trump the regulators” attitude of Australia’s mass media, what happened to Jacintha Saldanha was absolutely inevitable.

  1. Just as no-one could accurately predict which specific  breached welfare recipients would die, it was impossible to predict who, upon being victimized by an Australian mass media entity, would respond by committing suicide.
  2. However, given the unreported and thus undisclosed pattern of post breaching suicides, it was reasonably foreseeable that if an Australian mass media entity overstepped the mark and insensitively traumatized someone  who was emotionally fragile, then the consequences could be fatal.

Tragically, that “someone” was Jacintha Saldanha.

“If only…”  There was a cascading chain of events that combined to result in Jacintha’s death and altering any one of those events may have ‘broken the chain’ and prevented her death.

Politicians and political parties should not have created the dangerous, unconstitutional breaching legislation that the Australian mass media has so enthusiastically endorsed.

    1. The Australian Federal Police should have been proactive in investigated the Performance Indicator Targets reports in June 2000, or after the Pearce Inquiry Report was released. There was also absolutely no legally valid excuse for failing to investigate this breaching quota fraudulence after I specifically requested in writing that the AFP do so in June 2004.
    2. My 2009 ‘Perksgate’ complaint and other requests to the AFP, as recently as May 2012, to investigate  the Quotagate fraud and fatalities have all fallen on deaf ears.
    3. Action at any time to investigate these deaths would have almost certainly have drawn attention to the puerile role of Australia’s mass media in supporting this covert holocaust and the ensuing public concern and outrage would have almost certainly acted as a very powerful deterrent to the sort of “anything goes – cowboy country ” activity that triggered Jacintha’s death.
    4. If New Scotland Yard is diligent and impartial in scrutinizing the underlying reasons why Jacintha died, then many chain-breaker events will be identified such as the refusal of the Australian Crime Commission to investigate whether or not the Howard Government and the AFP did a ‘dirty deal’ in June 2004, i.e. no investigation of the Travelgate and Quotagate fatalities in exchange for the draconian police powers contained in the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 legislation.
    5. As pointed out in Part 3a of my submission to the inquest, neither the Ombudsman’s Office (OCO) nor the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) had the statutory powers needed to protect welfare recipients and so the ineffective response from Assistant Secretary Matt Hall of the Federal Attorney-General’s office was to buck pass the issue of socio-economic vilification to another agency that several years earlier had already indicated that it did not have the statutory powers needed to address these problems!
  1. On Friday 9th November 2012, Detective Inspector Stuart MacIntyre from the South Australian Police’ Major Crime Section contacted me by phone in an effort to find out if I had any information that might be relevant to a triple manslaughter case that he was investigating.
  2. During that interview I asked Inspector MacIntyre “Do you know what “breaching is.” “No” he truthfully replied. At that point in time he switched to Inspector Clouseau mode by failing to follow up and find out why I was so concerned that this activity should be investigated by SAPOL. (In May 2011, his equally indifferent boss, Superintendent Grant Moyle, had followed the lead set by the Australian Federal Police and declined to investigate the breaching quota triggered proxy murders.)
  3. If Inspector MacIntyre had acted in a more professional manner and sussed out the appalling risks posed by the lethal combination of breaching activities and mass media vilification, it is not beyond the bounds of probability that news of such an investigation could have had a significant  moderating effect upon the Australian mass media’s reckless “anything goes” attitude.
  4. If News Ltd.’s Australian CEO Kym Williams had been aware of a major crime investigation into the breaching proxy murders and mass media’s role in driving up this suicide rate through vilification, he may have been some-what less enthusiastic about pushing his brazenly outrageous philosophy that “… market forces must trump the regulators”.
  5. With a major crime investigation in (to) the behaviour of the media, 2Day FM management might have given more serious consideration to laws dealing with impersonating the Queen, obtaining private medical information and the secret recording and broadcasting of telephone conversations.
  6. Time and time again, systemic circuit breakers, micro events, which could have had life-saving consequences all failed to kick in.
  7. The core reason for this repeated failure was the ingrained culture of reckless indifference by people who should have known better, but failed to act in a compassionate and responsible manner.

Your excellency, in September 2009 you were one of those circuit-breaker-bureaucrats who failed to take action when action was required. If the letter from your personal assistant is to be believed, YOU KNEW what was happening but did nothing to dispel the wall of official secrecy that (still) surrounds the lethal consequences of breaching activity. One of the unforeseen consequences of your failure to act is that Jacintha Saldanha is now dead.

Other Fatal Consequences of Your Nonfeasance.

What is most disturbing is Centrelink’s latest welfare recipient rip-off. This is the deliberate failure to reveal the “Waiver of Debt” law, i.e. the 6 Week Rule, in paragraph 1,237a of the Social Security Act. When demanding repayment of over-payments that were due to Centrelink error, this law is deliberately concealed. Internet feedback to my blogging about this law had revealed that this fraudulent activity may also be triggering suicides. The crucial question that you urgently need to ask is how many people who have received ‘Letters of Demand’ from Centrelink were not informed of the 6 Week Rule and have never paid some or all of the money demanded because they could not cope with this alleged debt and either committed suicide or else have died from a stress induced event such as a heart attack or stroke?

Despite what South Australia’s Attorney-General, John Rau, may have written earlier this year,

SYSTEMIC FRAUD + A CONSEQUENTIAL FATALITY = FELONY MURDER.

Noblesse Oblige` means that it is totally inappropriate for you to continue to ignore the systemic exploitation of vulnerable welfare recipients by political parties, public servants or the mass media. You are the representative of Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II, and when you fail to act to protect her subjects, it means that Her Majesty has also failed to act to protect her subjects.

Jacintha Saldanha was both a loyal citizen and a loyal servant of the Crown and one of the many complex interacting reasons why she died is because the Vice-Regal representative in Australia was too indifferent to the abuse of welfare recipients by political parties, bureaucrats and the mass media to look closely at these issues and the potentially wider lethal implications of this activity.

  1. The logic of what happened to Jacintha is very simple; when you ignore dangerously irresponsible behaviour by powerful people or organizations, vulnerable people get hurt!
  2. Noblesse Oblige` carry’s the dual obligation to speak up and defend the poor, and to also see that justice is done.
  3. The sad reality is that in 2009, when you had an opportunity to do so, you failed to meet these two obligations, and the direct downstream consequence of failing to so is that Jacintha Saldanha is dead, a husband no longer has a wife, and two children no longer have a mother.
  4. Do you feel unconcerned and indifferent about your failure to take action back in 2009, or are you still sufficiently unsullied by the trappings of power that you feel some sense of regret for having failed to take appropriate action?

Your Excellency, please live up to the Noblesse Oblige` obligation that is a core function of your high office  and take steps to ensure that Australia’s Covert Holocaust is finally stopped before anyone else dies. As a first step, you must ask the Prime Minister to compel Centrelink to finally report the details of the ‘uncollected’ post breaching fatalities statistics and the parallel statistics on the number of fatalities that have resulted from the failure to apply the 6 Week Rule.  Because doing so may mean that bureaucrats and politicians may face some very serious criminal charges, e.g. malfeasance, fraud and even felony murder, there may be great reluctance to do so, or there may be falsification of these reports, and so I strongly recommend that an independent forensic audit that does not involve either the Australian Federal Police or Australian Public Service agencies such as the Australian National Audit Office, which is yet another federal agency that is implicated in the ‘culture of reckless indifference’ handling of post breaching fatalities.

Do not let power, prestige, protocol and the trappings of high public office blur your vision and dull your abhorrence of injustice to the point that you are totally indifferent to what has been happening to welfare recipients for decades?

 You used to be a champion of women’s rights and yet, one of the consequences of your failure to act on the information you received in 2009 is that Jacintha Saldanha is dead in 2012.

Exploitation: The Status Quo

At the moment, Centrelink is trying to recover almost $3 Billion in over-payments from welfare recipients and Standard Operating Procedure by Centrelink, as mentioned previously, is to issue a Letter of Demand; a letter that deliberately misleads with a half-truth, i.e. the law requires that an over-payment be repaid.

The 6 Week Rule is buried deeply, way down on page 604 of the grossly over-bloated Social Security Act; even some of the lawyers who represent welfare recipients accused of fraud by Centrelink because they refuse to repay the over-payments made by Centrelink, are unaware of this law.

  1. One person who contacted me who had sought the advice of lawyer who did not know of this law had been advised by that lawyer to plead guilty. Needless to say, after doing so, this person is not happy at having pleaded guilty when (s)he was in fact being defrauded by Centrelink.
  2. In a recent educational blog posting about how Centrelink works the 6 Week Rule Scam, using an alias, I told the story of ‘Harry’, an aged pensioner who was a recent victim of this scam. He knows that he has been scammed by Centrelink but paid up anyway.
  3. As ‘Harry’ put it, “Centrelink is too big, too powerful; you just can’t fight them.”

Our nation’s senior citizens deserve far better treatment than that; Noblesse Oblige` is an obligation that you cannot ignore, not if you desire to avoid any more incidents like Jacintha’s.

To be done, Justice must be seen to be done.

The Internet is an entirely new social paradigm; it used to be that “only the winners write the history books.” Thanks to the Internet and 21st century developments such as Facebook, Twitter and blog sites such as WordPress, anyone can present their version of the truth to the entire world. As a consequence, this document is NOT a private document. It will be posted on my Ronald’s Space blog site on the 4th or 5th January 2013.

Jacintha’s death has attracted a lot of attention and as I step up my endeavours to have the cascade of events that preceded her death made public, e.g. by ignoring both the secret confidential classification of submission 287 to the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry and the two ‘don’t copy, don’t distribute’ orders, the number of people being made aware of the system and mass media injustices perpetrated against welfare recipients is only going to increase.

Once a court spits the dummy and demands that Centrelink reveal the unpublished data on post breaching fatalities, the cat will be out of the bag and the crucial question for criminal investigators across the nation will be, “Who knew?”

Your Excellency, you knew!

Yours faithfully,

 Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for welfare justice.

N.B. The short link URL for this blog is: http://wp.me/P1n8TZ-2

One Response to The role of Australia’s mass media regulations in the death of Jacintha Saldanha: Part 3d: The lethal failure of Noblesse Oblige`.

  1. Hi there,

    I just read a post on supervisor safety you posted a while back on your blog: https://yadnarie48.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/beyond-devils-dust-the-secret-minutes-of-the-meeting-with-safety-inspectors-that-officially-never-happened/

    I thought you might be interested in a resource of free supervisor safety powerpoint presentations we just published, check it out: http://complianceandsafety.com/blog/supervisor-training-powerpoint/

    You’re more than welcome to use any of the content in this resource on your site. We want it to help as many people as possible.

    Thanks a lot!

    Matthew Pelletier
    Director of Public Relations
    Compliance and Safety

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s