To,
Information and Evidence Unit,
Office of Prosecutor
International Criminal Court,
United Nations,
The Hague,
The Netherlands
Re: CLAIM UNDER ARTICLE 15 OF THE ROME STATUTE
Dear Prosecutor,
For the purpose of Rome 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:
1.Torture
“Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody, or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
Therefore, I make a claim of crimes against humanity specifically torture.
I make a claim that Australian health regulators have intentionally inflicted severe mental pain and suffering upon health practioners under their control, as a part of widespread or systematic attack, some of which has led into suicide of health practioners.
Sources of information:-
A live interview of an Australian politician. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGR1E-6bvf0
BACKGROUND
A Senate inquiry was launched into medical complaints process, particularly the prevalence of widespread and systematic bullying and harassment of health practioners by health regulators, that occurs by widespread investigation of vexatious complaints intentionally conducted by health regulators.
In that Inquiry, Ombudsman clarified that she does not investigate vexatious conduct of complaining/notifying health practioners.
Extract:
‘2.23 Ms Samantha Gavel, current (and first) Ombudsman, further outlined her responsibilities and powers, emphasising that the Ombudsman’s office is focused on AHPRA’s procedures, rather than the details of the original complaint:
It is important to note that the role of my office is not to review the conduct or performance of health practitioners; that is the role of the national boards.’
Yet Ombudsman alleged, in the form of an experiential suggestion that vexatious complaints does not have high incidence of occurrence.
What was more concerning was that the inquiring Senate committee referred the experiential suggestion as “? evidence.”
‘2.31 The Ombudsman noted that ready access to the complaints mechanism is important for public health and that, while complaints can be lodged vexatiously, there is limited evidence of this happening often:
… the NHPOPC’s [National Health Practitioner Ombudsman and Privacy Commissioner] experience in handling complaints about the administrative actions of AHPRA and the National Boards does not suggest that there is a high incidence of people intentionally using notification processes for vexatious purposes.’
Ombudsman’s experience cannot be official; she has already clarified that she cannot officially find vexatious complaints, or vexatious conduct in notifiers.
Senate committee then recommended another inquiry in Recommendation 6. Government did not support it. Yet the senate committee went ahead with it anyways. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/MedicalComplaints45/Government_Response
In the new inquiry, Ombudsman submits in Para 2, p. 11, NHPOPC/Ombudsman submission 105:
Evaluation of complaints received from 1 July 2016 to 30 December 2016, does, however, reveal an increase in complaints from health practitioners raising concerns about allegedly vexatious notifications. While the data for this period is yet to be audited, the NHPOPC estimates that twelve complaints have been received from health practitioners during this period where the health practitioner has raised an allegation of vexatiousness in relation to a notification. This represents 6.5 per cent of the 182 complaints received during this period.
Strike off:
Evaluation of complaints received from 1 July 2016 to 30 December 2016, does, however, reveal an increase in complaints from health practitioners raising concerns about allegedly vexatious notifications. While the data for this period is yet to be audited, the NHPOPC estimates that twelve complaints have been received from health practitioners during this period where the health practitioner has raised an allegation of vexatiousness in relation to a notification. This represents 6.5 per cent of the 182 complaints received during this period.
Remove struck off words:
Evaluation of complaints received from 1 July 2016 to 30 December 2016, does, however, reveal an increase in vexatious notifications. While the data for this period is yet to be audited, the NHPOPC estimates that twelve complaints have vexatiousness in relation to a notification. This represents 6.5 per cent of the 182 complaints received during this period.
Reword into one sentence:
‘2.28 NHPOPC’s submission to the committee also indicates vexatious notifications for the 2016–17 year were trending higher than in the previous two years, with an estimated twelve complaints received at the time of submission, or 6.5 per cent of the total notifications received during the period.’
Compare with 2.28 of the Senate report.
Page 15 of Senate report:
2.25 The considerable anecdotal evidence provided by practitioners stood in contrast to independent evidence provided to the committee by the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman and Privacy Commissioner (NHPOPC).
[…]
2.28 NHPOPC’s submission to the committee also indicates vexatious notifications for the 2016–17 year were trending higher than in the previous two years, with an estimated twelve complaints received at the time of submission, or 6.5 per cent of the total notifications received during the period.30
2.29 The conflict between the perspectives of the practitioners and the findings of the NHPOPC may be explained by differing interpretations of the use of the word vexatious.
Page 18:
2.52 Whilst the committee acknowledges the concerns raised by health practitioners, the independent evidence (NHPOPC) received by the committee does not suggest that vexatious notifications are a widespread issue; rather, they appear to be relatively infrequent. {2.25 The considerable anecdotal evidence provided by practitioners stood in contrast to independent evidence provided to the committee by the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman and Privacy Commissioner (NHPOPC).}
One can clearly see that Senate committee openly misrepresented Ombudsman falsely to have made findings and evidence of vexatious complaints.
They used the misrepresentation of Ombudsman, as a basis to make false claims That vexatious complaints are not widespread an issue.
That is not true. But an illusion of the truth.
The truth is that Ombudsman only quantified uninvestigated allegations, not investigative findings.
The truth is that vast majority of considerable anecdotal evidence indicates vexatious complaints are a widespread issue. And there exist no independent evidence to rebut them.
Health regulators already claimed in the Senate Inquiry that they personally believed that vexatious complaints are not a widespread issue.
The misleading statements made by the Senate about Ombudsman now only supports the claims of health regulators.
Ombudsman never made findings as Senate committee has falsely claimed. Rather Ombudsman already clarified in the previous inquiry. That they do not find vexatious conduct or vexatious complaints.
‘2.23 Ms Samantha Gavel, current (and first) Ombudsman, further outlined her responsibilities and powers, emphasising that the Ombudsman’s office is focused on AHPRA’s procedures, rather than the details of the original complaint:
It is important to note that the role of my office is not to review the conduct or performance of health practitioners; that is the role of the national boards.’
Health Board gave evidence in the previous inquiry that vexatious cannot be found or quantified due to its inherently elusive nature:
‘2.30 Section 151 of the National Law authorises National Boards to take no further action on any notification if it reasonably believes it to be vexatious or frivolous. Section 237 protects those who make a notification in good faith. However, as the joint submission from the Medical Board, Nursing and Midwifery Board and AHPRA notes, classifying notifications as vexatious is not straightforward:
However, determining that a notification is vexatious can be difficult, and hence data on vexatious complaints and notifications are difficult to quantify. For example, a complaint may relate to performance and risks to public safety but there may be elements of self interest from a notifier in relation to their professional or commercial interests.’
Health co-regulatory agency AHPRA, under inquiry, researched a hypothetical idea, which they labeled “?truly vexatious”.
“Truly vexatious” is a personal complaint with romantic angle, made by jilted and jealous lovers from love triangles, who complain with farcical intent to emotionally distress, or to cause some kind of harm upon ex lovers. CEO of AHPRA demonstrated the hypothethical “truly vexatious” with examples. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22committees/commsen/abfd6625-4545-45f1-bbd2-80479faa621e/0001%22
Extract:-
AHPRA CEO Martin Fletcher: By ‘vexatious’ I mean complaints motivated by rivalry, commerce or emotion rather than genuine concerns for patient safety.
Mr Fletcher : What I am saying is that in all of the available data and research evidence that we have looked at there does not appear to be a big problem with vexatious complaints, and by ‘vexatious’ I mean a harmful intent on the part of the person making the complaint and no patient safety concern emerging when we look at the issue. If I can just give you an example—
Mr Fletcher : In terms of numbers. If I can give you one example, we have a research partnership with the University of Melbourne. They looked at 850 mandatory notifications over a 12-month period. They found fewer than six that they believed potentially met the criteria for a vexatious notification. The point I am also making is that, even though the numbers are small, we recognise that the impact on the individuals involved can be significant.
I can give you a couple of examples to give you just the flavour. One, for example, related to a couple who were both medical practitioners, who had been married and who were divorcing. There was an issue about the future of the practice in the context of their divorce. Another one related to two health practitioners who were in a relationship with the same other health practitioner, and notifications were made in the context of that. So it is typically those sorts of issues around questions of commerce, emotion and rivalry in what we would term harmful intent with no patient safety concerns emerging as a result of a notification.
‘A truly vexatious complaint is a complaint that is groundless and made with the intent of causing distress or harm to the subject of the complaint,’ Assoc Prof Bismark explains. …’
[…]
‘While vexatious reports are frequently talked about, Assoc Prof Bismark maintains there is very little hard evidence about how often they occur. The best available evidence suggests that truly vexatious complaints are very rare, and that under-reporting of well-founded concerns is likely a far greater problem.’
Senate committee later went on to construct an illogical recommendation, as Recommendation no. 3.
It is illogical because it is based on something allegedly found by Ombudsman, as alleged by the Senate committee, whilst evidence shows that Ombudsman never did. That is the alleged low quantity of vexatious complaints, allegedly found by Ombudsman, as alleged by the Senate Committee.
The illogical recommendation:-
That government considers, whether or not to grant recourse/compensation, to those very few victims of vexatious.
Government rejected such a recommendation. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/ComplaintsMechanism/Government_Response
Government explained that they cannot support the recommendation because Senate committee has represented Ombudsman’s personal and unofficial experiential suggestions as “evidence”.
Government also acknowledged AHPRA’s research on jealous-jilted lovers complaint of the “truly vexatious.”
Government response to recommendation 3:
‘AHPRA has commissioned research to better understand the extent of vexatious complaints. The currently available evidence suggests that the incidence of vexatious notifications is very low, and that greater risk is posed to the public from people not reporting their concerns. It is acknowledged however that vexatious notifications can have a significant impact on practitioners. AHPRA will use the research to improve its processes and inform best practice for reducing, identifying, and managing vexatious complaints.’
Like to like coloured comparison with Senate’s representation of Ombudsman’s experiential suggestion:
‘2.31 The Ombudsman noted that ready access to the complaints mechanism is important for public health and that, while complaints can be lodged vexatiously, there is limited evidence of this happening often:
… the NHPOPC’s [National Health Practitioner Ombudsman and Privacy Commissioner] experience in handling complaints about the administrative actions of AHPRA and the National Boards does not suggest that there is a high incidence of people intentionally using notification processes for vexatious purposes.’
Like to like coloured comparison with AHPRA’s research endorsed on website.
The best available evidence suggests that truly vexatious complaints are very rare, and that under-reporting of well-founded concerns is likely a far greater problem.
Like to like comparison with CEO’s evidence:
‘The point I am also making is that, even though the numbers are small, we recognise that the impact on the individuals involved can be significant.’
Government further claimed that AHPRA’s research on,“?truly vexatious” will also somehow manage the vexatious complaints, which the Board announced was difficult to find or quantify due to not being straightforward.
‘‘2.30 Section 151 of the National Law authorises National Boards to take no further action on any notification if it reasonably believes it to be vexatious or frivolous. Section 237 protects those who make a notification in good faith. However, as the joint submission from the Medical Board, Nursing and Midwifery Board and AHPRA notes, classifying notifications as vexatious is not straightforward:
However, determining that a notification is vexatious can be difficult, and hence data on vexatious complaints and notifications are difficult to quantify. For example, a complaint may relate to performance and risks to public safety but there may be elements of self interest from a notifier in relation to their professional or commercial interests.’
In this manner of misrepresentation of the Ombudsman, Senate denied the wide practice of atrocities and torture committed by the health regulators upon health practioners, which is committed by intentionally conducting widespread investigations of vexatious complaints.
Government, then, allowed the wide practice of atrocities of the health regulators on the health practioners to continue.
Making of misleading statements are considered the offence of contempt of parliament in Australian Constitution.
Now knowing that the Australian Government has their backs, the atrocities of health regulators upon health practioners have increased.
So online petitions have been organized.
https://www.change.org/p/australian-prime-minister-to-err-is-human?redirect=false
Kindly investigate health regulators for the widespread practice, torture of widespread investigation of vexatious complaints that has forced many health practioners into suicide.
Regards,
Dr Chandrika Barman
https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=1b68195d-6ae5-4688-a65c-0d1bb1b5545c&subId=509265
Member of AH Reforms.
Member of HPARA.