Comcare hires employees who do not understand how consent works [Part 2]

I have highlighted the key parts of this response which I will go on to discuss. If you need to catch up on what this is all about, head over here to read part 1.

Comcare claims that I can withhold my consent by withdrawing my compensation claim. That is 100% incorrect. If I withdraw my claim for compensation, that does not automatically revoke any consent I have previously provided for Comcare to collect, use or disclose my sensitive information. Comcare are stating that my consent is linked to my claim, and that the only way I can withdraw or withhold consent is to forfeit my compensation claim. There is nothing in the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act) that links consent to a claim like this, and there is nothing that says by starting a claim you are providing consent. Comcare may want this to be the case, but it isn't.

And this is proven because as it stands now, I have withheld my consent, and I have not withdrawn my claim for compensation. It is therefore a fact that I am not required to withdraw my compensation claim to withhold my consent. Comcare are trying to avoid discussing the real issue here, which is they are threatening me with a claim suspension (which has happened, my claim is suspended) if I do not provide my consent. Whether I wish to withdraw my compensation claim or not is entirely irrelevant and a different topic of discussion altogether.

Allow me to paint you a picture of what Comcare is doing here.

A husband who recently divorced his wife walks into their old family home, and he sees his (ex) wife sitting on the couch. He walks up to her and he says: "Have sex with me or I will punch you in the face. Alternatively, you can walk out the door of our house, and leave the house to me, never to return".

The wife doesn't want to have sex with her (ex) husband, but she also doesn't want to leave her home and give the house to the husband. She also doesn't want to be punched in the face. Therefore, the wife considers that the only thing she can do is have sex with her husband, as it is the most preferable option of the 3 outcomes. This is either pressure/coercion or duress. In fact I'd argue that it's all 3.

According to Comcare, this sex is consensual sex, because she could voluntarily chose to walk out the front door and leave the husband with the house to avoid having sex.

You can see what is wrong here right? Comcare are saying that they will suspend my claim (punch me in the face) unless I allow them to have sex with me (give them my consent to collect, use or disclose my sensitive information), and that it is entirely consensual because I can walk out the door and leave them my home (withdraw my compensation claim). You can see how they could possibly be rapists if this is their definition of consent right?... As I have demonstrated, it is a statement of fact that they do not understand consent. Forcing me to withdraw my compensation claim is a negative consequence that is just as, if not more negative for me than my claim simply being suspended. They're essentially saying "it's voluntary because you could chose to shoot yourself in the foot to avoid it"... who would even think that is normal? They are introducing a third (and even more negative) option, and saying because I could have voluntarily chose the third option, it suddenly makes it voluntary (consensual), WTF?... I am convinced that these people are likely to be sex offenders. They probably go around raping people and saying "it's completely consensual because you could have left my house at any time, you chose to stay in my house so you consented to sex". That's not how consent works, even a primary school child can tell you this... yet Comcare cannot.

What you are witnessing here is Comcare twisting the law into a version that suits itself, and this is common place at Comcare. Comcare's legislation (SRC Act) has become so stale, and privacy legislation has improved so much, that Comcare has now resorted to breaking the law in an attempt to get around the Privacy Act 1988, which prohibits it from collecting sensitive information without consent. It appears that Comcare has been breaking the law since amendments made to the Privacy Act 1988 in 2014, where the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) became enforceable through legislation. Privacy legislation was updated, however, Comcare has not bothered to update its legislation to be interoperable with the modern privacy law. As a result, Comcare now relies on threats, fear, coercion, dishonesty and harassment in an attempt to blackmail claimants out of their rights provided by the Privacy Act 1988, instead of relying on clear and concise legislation. Do you notice that the response from Comcare (pictured above) does not cite any legislation that supports what they are doing? I certainly noticed. This is the response of desperate people who know they are breaking the law, and they are trying really hard to justify it by providing an illogical response.

I recently had to educate Comcare that it was required to adhere to the APPs as per section 15 of the Privacy Act 1988. Here is what Comcare said to me

Here is my reply to Comcare, as you can see in their response to me at the top of this post, it seems that they have accepted, and now know that they are legally bound by the APPs. But they did not even know this until I educated them on this matter!

I did not receive a response to my email above. As soon as I point out they are wrong, they just clam up and go silent. How can the APPs be not legally binding when section 15 of the Privacy Act legally binds APP entities to adhere to them? The Privacy team at Comcare is doing what with their time? Because ~10 years after this became law, the Privacy team at Comcare still did not know that they are required to adhere to the APPs... you can see why this would be a rather large problem right? When the team literally called "Privacy" at Comcare, doesn't even know their basic obligations to privacy?

Blackmail, Fear, Coercion, Dishonesty and Harassment

How has Comcare been getting away with this since 2014? Blackmail, fear, coercion, dishonesty and harassment. Since speaking up about it (and other issues I have noticed at Comcare), I have been under a relentless campaign of harassment by Comcare and its employees. They have sent the police to my home, they have mischaracterised me as a threat, hoping the police will fear me into taking down my blog posts, referring me to the eSafety Commisioner to get my posts de-platformed (censorship), they are going fishing in retrospect for information they can use to undo determinations they have made, they are doctor shopping to try and find a doctor who will say what they prefer, hiding their identity in the process, and the list goes on. Comcare bullies people into compliance, or else it tries to silence us by performing adverse actions on our claims if we dare speak up. But I will not relent, and I will not be silent about it.

As soon as you speak out about something that isn't right, what occurs is you are labelled as a "problem customer", and your claim gets transferred to the Statutory Oversight team. What this team proceeds to do, nobody should ever be subject to. They put communication blockers in place (all Comcare staff are instructed to hang up immediately if you call), they cherry pick what emails they want to respond to, all your emails get diverted to the Statutory Oversight team, you don't know if they're going to get forwarded on to the intended recipient or not, you have no idea if you will even get a response, and if you do, it is typically weeks or even months later. After waiting all that time, if you get a response it is most likely to be a low quality response that doesn't address your question/s and leaves you with even more questions.

I have had people tell me that once their claim moved to being managed by this team, Catherine Chan and Liz Bell specifically, they had a complete mental breakdown and then Comcare rejected their future claims on the basis that it was Comcare causing them injury, and not their former employer. That is dead set how disgusting these people are, they appear to be deliberately inflicting injury on people to then turn around and deny liability. At least 2 people have shared with me that this has happened to them. One person stated to me that they settled just before an AAT hearing for a paltry amount, feeling pressured into taking the money because they were under financial duress. They now regret taking the settlement as it was a small amount, they are still injured, the money is all gone, and they are not getting any support at all. You have to be a special kind of person to work at Comcare and operate in a team that does this, a disgusting person, no soul. I guess they know this, because they have such guilty consciences that they have now closed their reception areas and locked the buildings from public access because they are worried someone is going to harm them. They treat people poorly and walk around scared of their own shadow as a result.

"Must be able"

Comcare states that it "must be able to collect, use and disclosure [sic] your personal information in order to administer your compensation claim". This is logically true, however, Comcare thinks that because it must collect some information to be able to administer a claim, it therefore can entitle itself to whatever information it wants, and this is false.

For starters, if Comcare could truly just get whatever information they wanted, well who polices it? What's to stop Comcare from demanding to measure the size of my penis and then suspending my claim if I refuse to provide the size of my penis? Can you see the issue here? Comcare is operating as a law unto itself. It decides what information it wants, when it wants it, and if it requires your consent to get it, it will blackmail you or harass you until you relent and supply your consent, in complete disregard for the Privacy Act 1988.

If the government must do something, then by equal measure, there must be legislation that exists which states that the government must do that thing. There is no legislation that states Comcare must get certain information. It is at Comcare's discretion what information they do or do not get, and that information must be relevant. However, because there is nobody policing the relevance of the information Comcare is requesting, it is leading to Comcare going on fishing expeditions for irrelevant information which it can try and use to deny claims. Thus, it is up to claimants to use their Privacy Act rights to protect themselves from Comcare going on fishing trips. It is simply the case here that Comcare wants some information, it knows that legally it has no right to collect that information, and so it is threatening me, blackmailing me with a claim suspension if I don't relent and give it the information that it wants. Well guess what? Want with one hand, piss in the other, and see which hand fills up first. It ain't gonna be a hand full of my sensitive information, tell you that for free.

Complaint Number 2

I have now lodged my complaint with OAIC. If their previous performance is anything to go by, in 6 months time someone will email me and tell me that they are closing the complaint and nothing will come from it.