On April Fool’s Day 1978, Commonwealth Police arrested 182 pensioners and doctors in a series of raids.
A few days later, the Department of Social Security (DSS) cancelled the pensions of 669 people. These people were said to have conspired to defraud the Commonwealth by obtaining invalid pensions and sickness benefits to which they were not entitled, using medical certificates that allegedly fabricated or exaggerated complaints.
Most of the pensioners involved, and most of the doctors who wrote the medical certificates, were of Greek origin and the case became known as the ‘Greek Conspiracy’.
Ten years and tens of millions of dollars later, all the criminal charges were withdrawn or dismissed. After a special inquiry chaired by Dame Roma Mitchell of the Human Rights Commission, compensation was paid to those arrested and nearly all the cancelled pensions and benefits were restored with full arrears.
Even so, those pensioners and doctors falsely accused in the Greek Conspiracy case carry the emotional scars of their humiliation and the stress of the long battle to clear their names. Many were receiving pensions because of psychiatric or nervous disorders and in many cases their conditions deteriorated as a result of this case.
Various aspects of the case were divided up between different legal bodies.
Redfern Legal Centre provided initial legal representation in the committal proceedings and in the efforts to get the pensions restored. The Australian Legal Aid Office eventually took over the running of these cases.
PIAC pursued the issues of maladministration by the Department of Social Security.
PIAC’s main involvement was in relation to the Ombudsman’s investigation of the cancellation of pensions and benefits.
A psychiatrist, Yolande Lucire, made a complaint to the Ombudsman on behalf of some of her clients about a year after the initial suspension of their pensions. Over three years later, the Ombudsman still had not reported and in late 1982 PIAC was asked to intervene. Thereafter followed a year of litigation on several fronts as the Ombudsman sought to withhold his draft report from PIAC, although at the same time providing it to the Department of Social Security.
The complaints the Ombudsman was asked to investigate can be summarised as follows:
- Reliance on discriminatory criteria in identifying those persons whose pensions were to be cancelled. The DSS had used a ‘hit list’ compiled by the Commonwealth Police on the basis that people had Greek sounding names and had been treated by certain doctors. It was subsequently admitted that the police had no evidence against these people.
- Failure to comply with the usual practice of allowing people who are alleged not to be medically unfit a period of three months notice before their pension is cancelled. This action resulted in many
pensioners and their families being thrown into severe financial difficulties.
- Failure to ensure proper medical examinations in reviewing the eligibility of those living in Greece. These people were first examined by a doctor attached to the Australian embassy in Athens. They complained that he was rude and cursory in his examinations and was more concerned with whether they had seen any of the doctors alleged to be involved in the conspiracy than with assessing what was wrong with them. Access to his reports under the Freedom of Information Act revealed some extraordinary statements, such as ‘talks as if vaccinated by a gramophone needle’, ‘this man should be on the stage’, and ‘excelled at hysteric displays’. This doctor’s reports were later criticised by other senior doctors in the Department as ‘sparse’, ‘unprofessional’ and ‘ill-advised’.
- Unreasonable delay in arranging for reassessment of pensioners living in Greece and discriminatory treatment of them in comparison to those living in Australia. It took the Department well over 18 months to reassess those people living in Greece. The delay forced many pensioners to return to Australia in an endeavour to get their pensions restored more quickly. For people who were often quite ill and who were living in financially constrained circumstances, this caused obvious hardship.
PIAC first wrote to the Ombudsman in December 1982, three years after the complaint was first made, inquiring when he was likely to report. The Ombudsman wrote back acknowledging the delay but attributing it to staff shortage. In March 1983, the Ombudsman informed PIAC that he had completed the draft report and was forwarding it to the Department of Social Security for comment, but not to PIAC.
PIAC considered that its clients should also have had an equal opportunity to comment, particularly as criticisms had been made of one of them.
PIAC sought access to the draft report under the FOI Act, but the Ombudsman claimed that his Act imposed overriding obligations of secrecy upon him.
PIAC appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against the Ombudsman’s refusal.
In its judgment of November 1983, the Tribunal held that s 38 of the FOI Act picked up the secrecy provisions of the Ombudsman’s Act. PIAC then appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court, which overturned the AAT decision. However, the Ombudsman then threw up a further barrage of grounds of objection to disclosure. Justice Shephard of the Federal Court, who by this stage was dealing with PIAC’s fresh attempt to gain access under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, took a dim view of the Ombudsman’s ingenuity in finding new arguments:
‘A public official is not entitled to scratch his head every time he loses a round and say: well, I will think of something else, and put this up as a barrier. That is not the way that the thing should be allowed to go on … it’s just not on for litigation to be conducted in this way.’
In July 1984, Justice Shephard held that PIAC was entitled to have access to the bulk of the draft report, but not to its conclusions. While PIAC considered appealing, it had gained most of the documents it required and was able to get a good idea of which direction the Ombudsman was going in.
PIAC then prepared a lengthy submission to the Ombudsman setting out evidence in support of the complaints against the DSS. This was considered by the Ombudsman in preparing his final report, released in September 1984.
The report was a damning indictment of the conduct of the DSS. In particular, the Ombudsman
criticised the Department’s action in suspending pensions on the basis of the police list without taking its own action to verify the allegations. He found that these pensioners were subjected to guilt by association.
The Ombudsman also found that the Department had been unreasonably tardy in reassessing pensioners and unreasonably discriminatory in its actions against those living in Greece. He recommended that the pensioners be paid the pension they should have received during the ‘three month grace period’ usually accorded rather than an instant cessation of pension, an amount for lost fringe benefits, assessed at 25% of the pension, and reimbursement of airfares for those who returned to Australia to chase up their loss of pension.
The Ombudsman also criticised PIAC in his report, blaming the FOI litigation for a year’s delay in producing his final report. This was, of course, triggered by the Ombudsman’s own stubborn refusal to give access to the draft report. In justifying his practice of providing draft reports only to departments, the Ombudsman said that it would be unjust to release a critical report without first providing the department concerned with an opportunity to respond. Other ombudsmen, including the New South Wales Ombudsman, do not take this view and routinely provide complainants with draft reports.
PIAC was also involved in other ways in the Greek Conspiracy case. PIAC acted for a number of clients in appeals to get back their pensions, all of which were ultimately settled in the clients’ favour. PIAC also filed several hundred writs against the Commonwealth in the High Court seeking damages for the loss and injury caused, which added to the pressure to pay compensation.
Looking back over the saga, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that at its root lay discriminatory views of Greeks as malingerers.
There was no evidence that Greeks or any other migrant group make any greater claims on the welfare system than others. The Greek Conspiracy case is not only a blight on Australian public administration but is a testament to the immaturity of a society that harbours racism and prejudice despite its loud
protestations of multiculturalism.
The ‘Greek Conspiracy’
On April Fool’s Day 1978, Commonwealth Police arrested 182 pensioners and doctors in a series of raids.
A few days later, the Department of Social Security (DSS) cancelled the pensions of 669 people. These people were said to have conspired to defraud the Commonwealth by obtaining invalid pensions and sickness benefits to which they were not entitled, using medical certificates that allegedly fabricated or exaggerated complaints.
Most of the pensioners involved, and most of the doctors who wrote the medical certificates, were of Greek origin and the case became known as the ‘Greek Conspiracy’.
Ten years and tens of millions of dollars later, all the criminal charges were withdrawn or dismissed. After a special inquiry chaired by Dame Roma Mitchell of the Human Rights Commission, compensation was paid to those arrested and nearly all the cancelled pensions and benefits were restored with full arrears.
Even so, those pensioners and doctors falsely accused in the Greek Conspiracy case carry the emotional scars of their humiliation and the stress of the long battle to clear their names. Many were receiving pensions because of psychiatric or nervous disorders and in many cases their conditions deteriorated as a result of this case.
Various aspects of the case were divided up between different legal bodies.
Redfern Legal Centre provided initial legal representation in the committal proceedings and in the efforts to get the pensions restored. The Australian Legal Aid Office eventually took over the running of these cases.
PIAC pursued the issues of maladministration by the Department of Social Security.
PIAC’s main involvement was in relation to the Ombudsman’s investigation of the cancellation of pensions and benefits.
A psychiatrist, Yolande Lucire, made a complaint to the Ombudsman on behalf of some of her clients about a year after the initial suspension of their pensions. Over three years later, the Ombudsman still had not reported and in late 1982 PIAC was asked to intervene. Thereafter followed a year of litigation on several fronts as the Ombudsman sought to withhold his draft report from PIAC, although at the same time providing it to the Department of Social Security.
The complaints the Ombudsman was asked to investigate can be summarised as follows:
pensioners and their families being thrown into severe financial difficulties.
PIAC first wrote to the Ombudsman in December 1982, three years after the complaint was first made, inquiring when he was likely to report. The Ombudsman wrote back acknowledging the delay but attributing it to staff shortage. In March 1983, the Ombudsman informed PIAC that he had completed the draft report and was forwarding it to the Department of Social Security for comment, but not to PIAC.
PIAC considered that its clients should also have had an equal opportunity to comment, particularly as criticisms had been made of one of them.
PIAC sought access to the draft report under the FOI Act, but the Ombudsman claimed that his Act imposed overriding obligations of secrecy upon him.
PIAC appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against the Ombudsman’s refusal.
In its judgment of November 1983, the Tribunal held that s 38 of the FOI Act picked up the secrecy provisions of the Ombudsman’s Act. PIAC then appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court, which overturned the AAT decision. However, the Ombudsman then threw up a further barrage of grounds of objection to disclosure. Justice Shephard of the Federal Court, who by this stage was dealing with PIAC’s fresh attempt to gain access under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, took a dim view of the Ombudsman’s ingenuity in finding new arguments:
‘A public official is not entitled to scratch his head every time he loses a round and say: well, I will think of something else, and put this up as a barrier. That is not the way that the thing should be allowed to go on … it’s just not on for litigation to be conducted in this way.’
In July 1984, Justice Shephard held that PIAC was entitled to have access to the bulk of the draft report, but not to its conclusions. While PIAC considered appealing, it had gained most of the documents it required and was able to get a good idea of which direction the Ombudsman was going in.
PIAC then prepared a lengthy submission to the Ombudsman setting out evidence in support of the complaints against the DSS. This was considered by the Ombudsman in preparing his final report, released in September 1984.
The report was a damning indictment of the conduct of the DSS. In particular, the Ombudsman
criticised the Department’s action in suspending pensions on the basis of the police list without taking its own action to verify the allegations. He found that these pensioners were subjected to guilt by association.
The Ombudsman also found that the Department had been unreasonably tardy in reassessing pensioners and unreasonably discriminatory in its actions against those living in Greece. He recommended that the pensioners be paid the pension they should have received during the ‘three month grace period’ usually accorded rather than an instant cessation of pension, an amount for lost fringe benefits, assessed at 25% of the pension, and reimbursement of airfares for those who returned to Australia to chase up their loss of pension.
The Ombudsman also criticised PIAC in his report, blaming the FOI litigation for a year’s delay in producing his final report. This was, of course, triggered by the Ombudsman’s own stubborn refusal to give access to the draft report. In justifying his practice of providing draft reports only to departments, the Ombudsman said that it would be unjust to release a critical report without first providing the department concerned with an opportunity to respond. Other ombudsmen, including the New South Wales Ombudsman, do not take this view and routinely provide complainants with draft reports.
PIAC was also involved in other ways in the Greek Conspiracy case. PIAC acted for a number of clients in appeals to get back their pensions, all of which were ultimately settled in the clients’ favour. PIAC also filed several hundred writs against the Commonwealth in the High Court seeking damages for the loss and injury caused, which added to the pressure to pay compensation.
Looking back over the saga, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that at its root lay discriminatory views of Greeks as malingerers.
There was no evidence that Greeks or any other migrant group make any greater claims on the welfare system than others. The Greek Conspiracy case is not only a blight on Australian public administration but is a testament to the immaturity of a society that harbours racism and prejudice despite its loud
protestations of multiculturalism.
Wins
ABC News: Qantas agrees to change assistance dog processes after being sued for disability discrimination
Equality Bill ‘an important step, but not the end of the journey’
Lawyers Weekly: New laws ensure ‘courts aren’t just the realm of a wealthy few’
Keep up to date with our work
Subscribe for updates including media coverage, event invitations and progress stories. You will hear from us about twice a month.