Following the article written on the 8th November quite a bit has happened. Firstly, written refusal was sought from the trustee as to exactly why the claim under severe financial hardship (SFH) was refused. This was identified as being because the "Q230 form was not produced". It was again stated that the Q230 could not be produced by Centrelink not because Abstudy wasn't a "Commonwealth Income Support Payment" but because it is financed by DEEWR not by DSS and therefore administratively Centrelink cannot produce a Q230. However, again it was pointed out that, according to the 1994 Regulations, Centrelink the "Commonwealth body responsible for administering that class of payment" had already supplied "written evidence" but the trustee still refused release of the Super as they were "bound by the legislation".

The Issue was then brought before the Superannuation Complaint Tribunal who after initial inspection were going to take the case to tribunal but then when pressured for an opinion withdrew their support claiming initially that "the regulations definition of Commonwealth Income Support Payment does not include Abstudy". When this was questioned and their decision appealed the Tribunal responded by reiterating that the 1994 Regulations did not define Abstudy as an "income support payment" (note the absent Commonwealth this time) that "Q230 was merely a code" and moreover that, "neither the Tribunal nor the Trustee have any discretion to order or allow the release of funds under SFH unless the applicant had been in receipt of the CISP for 26 weeks or more". Any further appeal of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal decision would require applying to the Federal Court.

I have written back to the SCT expresing my views on their response and lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission challenging the 1994 Regulations as unconstitutional as it violates the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. As I have exemplified the Regulations neither clearly "include" or "exclude" Abstudy and that not only is Q230 not stated in the legislation but all that it requires is for "written evidence" (This is not further defined by the regulations). Moreover, that Abstudy, Centrelink, DEEWR, and the Commonwealth Ombudsman all define Abstudy as a CISP. That the person had been receiving this payment for more than 26 weeks and that written evidence from the Commonwealth body administering the payment had already been supplied stating exactly that; which is all the regulations actually ask for. Furthermore, it was also pointed out that Centrelink considered that not to release the benefit would go against the intention of the Abstudy policy entirely.

So far the Commonwealth Ombudsman has responded stating that whilst it is not in their jurisdiction to respond they agree with the crux of this issue, that is:

That not only should Abstudy students be allowed to access their Super in this manner when facing SFH but so should other Australian students (such as Youth Allowance and Austudy). Also that, the min. age of release for Super for Indigenous Australians should be reduced from 55 given that on average Indigenous Australians live 12-18 years less then Non-Indigenous Australians, to do otherwise would be discriminatory. Moreover, that whilst morgatees can receive release of Super via the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to avoid losing their house that those renting a house cannot release their Super as they are not covered by the act as unfair and discriminatory since the end result is still the same - loss of housing. Not an ideal way to increase retention of Indigenous or non-Indigenous students by removing their housing.

Pending response from Australian Human Rights this issue will be promoted further maybe for appeal to the Federal Court.

The Human Rights Watchgroup of Australia has been closely involved with an Indigenous family who have been trying to release some of their Superannuation funds under the Severe Financial Hardship clause of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994. For some 4 months now this Indigenous family have been forced to follow up this issue by themselves with both Federal Government bodies and the Superannuation Industry in order to save their housing. What follows is an Update on the legal status of Indigenous Australian's and their rights to reclaim their superannuation money and the actions of the Superannuation Industry to try and block it. These actions are not only illegal and breach Federal Government Legislation they also allow for the families Human Rights and those of other Indigenous Australians to be further violated in an action that can only be seen as deliberate, discriminatory and unjust. As per usual Indigenous Australians have to fight claw and tooth just to gain what every other Australian expects.

The New Stolen Wages: Update

In order to exemplify the issue we need to firstly review what the Commonwealth Department of Social Security (DSS) under their 1991 act defines as Severe Financial Hardship. This is the Government "standard" for the definition - please imagine how this applies to your own financial situation.

"(3) A person who is a member of a couple is in severe financial hardship for the purposes of qualifying for a crisis payment if the value of the person's liquid assets (within the meaning of subsections 14A(1) and (2)) is less than twice the fortnightly amount at the maximum payment rate of the social security pension or the social security benefit that is payable to the person."
 SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 19D Severe financial hardship--crisis payment definition 

Liquid assets is defined as "liquid assets" we take this to have the meaning of liquid or available assets freely on hand such as cash, money in savings accounts and items that are easily transferable into available cash. The family in question, as would be most Indigenous families, are clearly suffering from Severe Financial Hardship and have been for some time.

In order to stop rental proceedings from evicting them from their privately rented dwelling the family looked towards the Superannuation as a way to immediately resolve their situation. Under Superannuation legislation there are limited conditions as to having grounds to release super funds. The Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) outlines these on their website and they are quite specific. If you are renting a property through either the housing departments or privately APRA cannot assist you to release funds unless they are required to immediately pay your Medical treatment, medical transport or funeral expenses under certain conditions. So  if you are just in debt or owe back rent they are not able to assist the release of Superannuation funds in anyway. The Superannuation company involved "UniSuper" however, state clearly on their brochure entitled "Super Options when you leave your job" dated 17th September 2008 p.17, that you can release part of you super under Severe Financial Hardships grounds. Moreover, under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulation 1994 which is the governing legislation under which ALL superannuation companies operate, and therefore must adhere to, there is a clause for Severe Financial Hardship release (Part 6, Division 6.1, Subdivision 6.1.1, Clause 5).

The clause states that:

"(5) For the purposes of Schedule 1, a person is taken to be in severe financial hardship if:

(a) the trustee of a superannuation entity is satisfied:

(i) based on written evidence provided by at least one Commonwealth department or agency responsible for administering a class of Commonwealth income support payments, that:

(A) the person has received Commonwealth income support payments for a continuous period of 26 weeks; and
(B) the person was in receipt of payments of that kind on the date of the written evidence; and

(ii) that the person is unable to meet reasonable and immediate family living expenses."

As the person concerned had been forced to resign from her employment and was being paid Abstudy to continue her PhD studies, and had been for a period of 26 weeks and was also continuing to be paid Abstudy it appeared a straight forward operation. In fact when one considers the plight of Indigenous Australians to even get to this level of study on Abstudy is quite a major achievement and the thought of two months from completing a PhD having to uproot and move, with no additional funds or support, was a ridiculous ask. With this in mind we endeavoured to release the funds. Initially, UniSuper informed us that this should not be a problem, you could release up to $10,000 of Super, and that we would require a Q230 form from Centrelink to state that the correct payments and entitlements were being received when the 26 week mark was met. The family then waited for the payments to meet the 26 week requirement by minimising on every expense they could until the 6 month point was reached.

When the point was reached Centerlink was asked to produce a Q230 form and the family were immediately rejected being informed by Centrelink that they cannot produce a Q230 letter on Abstudy. Turning back to the Superannuation legislation point 5 above it states "a Commonwealth income support payment (CISP)" so we began by defining what Abstudy is? The Super legislation defines CISP as:

"Commonwealth income support payment means:
(a)    an income support supplement, service pension or social security pension as defined in subsection 23 (1) of the Social Security Act 1991; or

(b)    a social security benefit as defined in that subsection, other than:

 (i)    an austudy payment; or
(ii)    a youth allowance paid to a person who is undertaking full-time study; or

(c)    a drought relief payment under the Farm Household Support Act 1992 as in force immediately before the commencement of the Farm Household Support Amendment (Restart and Exceptional Circumstances) Act 1997; or

(d)    an exceptional circumstances relief payment under the Farm Household Support Act 1992; or

(e)    a payment of salary or wages made under the employment scheme of the Commonwealth that is known as the Community Development Employment Projects Scheme." 

Under the clause mentioned above and under subsection 23 (1) this does not exclude or include Abstudy - a failing of the legislation? No, the reason why Centrelink cannot provide a Q230 is not because Abstudy does not apply, but because all the other payments are financed by DSS but not Abstudy which is financed by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). Therefore, the administration system of Centrelink will not let them input let alone produce a Q230 letter and this is purely an administrative problem. However, Centrelink are authorised and did produce "written evidence" under section 196 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 that the customer had been on Abstudy for 26 weeks and that she was currently and would continue to be on those payments. As the Office for the Minister for DEEWR clarified - whilst they do finance Abstudy, Centrelink is actually the "administering Commonwealth Government Body" and they are the correct body to be writing the letter under the terms of the legislation. This letter was then sent to UniSuper with an expectation that the super would be released. Furthermore, four Commonwealth government departments including Centrelink, Abstudy, DEEWR and the Commonwealth Ombudsman all viewed that Abstudy was a Commonwealth Income Support Payment. Moreover, that in fact Centrelink and DSS stated that to consider it anything else would be "contrary to Abstudy provisions" and "not meet the intention of Abstudy policy" which is defined in the Abstudy manual as:

"The purpose of the ABSTUDY scheme is to address the particular educational disadvantages faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by improving educational outcomes to a level commensurate with the Australian population in general. ABSTUDY policy aims to encourage eligible Indigenous students to take full advantage of available educational opportunities and improve their employment opportunities."

Moreover, that the objective of Abstudy is to:

• encourage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to take full advantage of the educational opportunities available;
• promote equity of educational opportunity; and
• improve educational outcomes.

Two weeks later UniSuper has again denied the application stating that they "require a Q230 form" to release any funds. It was pointed out that this is not correct and that the legislation clearly states that "based on written evidence provided by at least one Commonwealth department or agency responsible for administering a class of Commonwealth income support payments". Which does not mention Q230 and clearly indicates "written evidence" from Centrelink stating so which UniSuper already had in their possession for three weeks. In fact, there is virtually no difference between a Q230 letter and the letter Centrelink generated and it has no other additional information other than the words Q230 stamped on it. 

UniSuper's legal department then changed their story stating that it "wasn't a CISP" until they were given the definition and the supporting comments mentioned above. They then changed their tack again, stating this time that under the act they "are not obliged" and it is at their "discretion" to release funds and basically refused. It was pointed out to them that to do so would be in breach of the legislation set out to control Superannuation companies in Australia and as such was breaking Commonwealth law however, they continue to refuse.

The issue is now back before the Commonwealth Ombudsman office as a complaint. Additionally, the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner has received a complaint from the family in regards to the actions and conduct of the Legal counsels at Unisuper and has also been forwarded to the Commonwealth Minister for Superannuation for his urgent attention. Furthermore, the family will tomorrow have to go to the Rental Tenancy Tribunal and explain why they have failed to pay the back rent they owe, to avoid being de-housed. I am sure the Tribunal will not view the actions of the Superannuation industry and the lack of adherence to Australian Law to highly.

Further Updates will be given on this issue as they become available.

So much for "Closing the Gap" it seems that it is only a policy term and not an actual action - So much for "Sorry" - Well at least for Superannuation anyway, what's worse is the Indigenous community themselves are left to drive and investigate this themselves on their own budget as usual - whilst others who should be administering and enforcing these issues do very little - if anything - to enforce the Law of Australia. Negligence is certainly high on the list of comments I would have in regards to these issues. If however the family had not been studying and instead were sitting on the Dole receiving social security pension for doing nothing they would have been fully entitled to these funds with a Q230 - So please take note and check your superannuation policies - you may be able to release some funds and some severe financial hardship that you may NOT have to endure.

Simon Charles Dorante-Day BA, BEng, M.R.G.C.
(c) Human Rights Watchgroup of Australia 2010. 

http://www.humanrightsactioncenter.org

Created by Seth Brau
Produced by Amy Poncher
Read by Marina Michelson

Music:
Rumspringa "Musical Chairs"
From the forthcoming album SWAY
©2010 Cantora Records

The aim of this article is to demonstrate how cultural ignorance and cultural arrogance can quite easily combine to cause discrimination and defamation of and an individual and/or a business that inevitably has the effect of breaching the Human Rights of both the individual and the business because of a lack of justice within the system. Moreover, that under the current system in Australia, political and human rights bodies are powerless to address this kind of criminal activity and collusion from occurring, often from quite large and recognised institutions, medias and bodies, mainly because of three reasons. Firstly, because the law considers defamation a civil and not a criminal matter and secondly, because the discrimination bodies are powerless to act and their authority to prosecute is restricted. Thirdly and finally, that when the discrimination leads to criminal defamation of person and business the official bodies still cannot step in and act until the "defamed" person or business undertakes civil proceedings against their offenders; a very costly and often risky venture limited to a few professional and very costly lawyers. This invariably leads to a complete failure of the system in identifying, rectifying and addressing such behaviours and they are left to fester. The defamed and discriminated person is left, with their human rights breached, to fend for themselves in a legal minefield. More often than not, most people walk away licking their wounds and making the best of a bad situation by carrying the emotional, social and financial trauma of being violated publicly with no justice. The libellous and discriminatory offenders avoid criminal conviction, a criminal record and civil proceedings that would have resulted in untold amounts of financial damages and public vindication for the defamed person.

The newspaper article “Victoria bans Brisbane practitioner” which can be viewed on line by clicking HERE was published by the Brisbane Times on February 2^nd 2008 and authored by Steve Butcher and Scott Casey; how appropriate! The article focuses upon the ruling of the Chinese Medicine Registration Board of Victoria against Prof. Master Dr. Jirong Zhang of 3 Treasure Natural Medicine Clinics in Brisbane further defaming and adding humiliation to the discriminatory degradation he already received at the hands of the Victorian Board. What might you ask is a Queensland practitioner doing registering in Victoria? Well the answer is quite simple and is part of the reason why this particular practitioner has come under attack – because the Victorian board is currently the only authority that officially recognises Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practitioners in Australia and as such registration with board is compulsory if you want your clients to claim and receive their TCM treatments and medications on health insurance in Australia. As such it is obviously in the interest of both the practitioner and his clients that they register with the Board. Dr. Zhang estimates that over the last few years this incident has cost him around $100,000 a year in loss of earnings. Obviously, a very rapid move towards a National Body, if correctly structured, would be an excellent idea.

Firstly, before we review some of the comments made in the article, review the research the authors and publishers should have done before they published the article and finally review the actual findings of the case that took place without any evidence or legal representation from the practitioner, I suggest we watch two short videos to demonstrate Dr. Zhang’s capabilities.

Dr. Zhang interviewed on Australian National Television 

Mr. Trevor Wheates interviewed by Mrs. Elvianna Dorante-Day CEO of
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Public Health Journal
about Master Dr. Jirong Zhang's 3 Treasure Healing method
and what is has achieved for his health and well-being.

Messer’s Butcher and Casey state in their opening passage that the Practitioner was banned for four months and fined $15,000 by Victorian Authorities; this is the first statement of untruth since Dr. Zhang removed his registration in disgust at the unfair, biased and discriminatory treatment he received and walked away having to only pay $2,000. They highlight that Dr. Zhang owns and manages three clinics in Brisbane however, they also go on to state that he “boasts” on “a” website of being a professor and master, which is incorrect. He actually "STATES" on the "OFFICIAL" website of his company “3 Treasure Natural Medicine” a registered Queensland business that he is a Professor, Dr. and Master correctly. They go on to state that he was “reprimanded” for “false, misleading and deceptive” representations however, this is also untrue as I will demonstrate. 

Dr. Zhang was born into a family line of traditional medicine and martial arts practitioners and grew up on the Yangtze River in the cradle of Chinese civilization. From the age of seven (7) he started his training in Chinese Medicine, Acupuncture, Qigong and Kung Fu under the traineeship of the senior members of his family. He has followed over 30 Masters in China in pursuit of the highest art of healing & spiritual enlightenment, including China's greatest Zen Master Yi Cheng, Buddhist Master Jing Kong, Tai Chi Grand Masters Feng Zhi Qiang & Ma Lai Wang, Xing Yi & Ba Gua Master Xu Fan Zhen, Qigong Master Yan Xin, Taoist Masters in Mt. Wu Dang & Buddhist Masters in the Shao Lin Temple - For which there is no offical certification, or educational course that could replace the knowledge he would have gained from these Masters from an early age. As a young man he trained the Hong Kong Police in martial arts and earned his first official qualification, a graduate diploma in Chinese Medicine from Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Since then he has gone on to be awarded a Bachelor of Medicine from the International University Medicina Alternativa in 1990 and a Masters of Regional Science from the University of Queensland 1991, as you can see by his student card he was enrolled in a Phd but at the time the University could not offer him a supervisor more qualified than him in TCM he was obliged to take the Masters. He was then awarded a Doctor of Philosophy from the Open International University for Complementary Medicines in 1994 then as Master Jirong Zhang he was given a five (5) year tenure as Professor of Chinese Medicine by the University Senate. This was extended in 2002 by the University Senate for a further five (5) years as Professor. Dr. Jirong Zhang during which time he was awarded The Ancient Royal Assyrian Order of Merit in recognition of the “excellence of his work in fostering and advancing the ideals of the healing arts” something that the Victorian board stated in 1.11 of their "allegations" he did not receive.

He also created, conducted and taught the first Traditional Chinese Medicine Course for Australian GP’s run by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) and having founded 3 Treasure Natural Medicine has over 8,000 clients and students from all over Australia. He has also recorded a series of videos, now DVD's, that outline his healing philosophy and practice based primarily on the classical teachings of the Yellow Emperor and the "Neijing Suwen" (an ancient Chinese medical text that has been treated as the fundamental doctrinal source for Chinese Medicine for more than two millennia). The late Lord Pandit Prof. Dr. Sir Anton Jayasuria described this series of video's as having "extended his lifespan" and "giving him a longer and higher quality life than he would have had if not for Dr. Zhang's lessons" truely a complement indeed.

Last year at the 60^th Anniversary of the World Guoshu Competition in Hong Kong Dr. Zhang led a team representing Australia and personally achieved a silver medal in Tai Chi Push-Hands and a gold medal in Tai ji Quan.

 Dr. Zhang's School representing Australia in Hong Kong, 2009.

Yet, both the article and the Chinese Medicine Registration Board of Victoria claim that he has no right to utilise his correct title or to acknowledge himself as he is traditionally and culturally known in China - as a recognised Master of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Qigong. What the board also failed to recognise in their investigation and explanation of the claims is that there is NO standard of recognition of Qigong qualifications in Australia, there are NO Universities teaching Qigong in Australia (unlike the rest of the World), and there is NO standard curriculum structure for either Qigong or Chinese medicine in Australia that follows the Traditional method of teaching. In fact the classical method of teaching and treatment of Traditional Chinese Medicine as laid down by the Neijing Suwen and practised by Dr. Zhang is an equal balance of acupuncture, qigong (meditative for the spirit and mind, physical for the muscles, joints and Qi flow), diet and nutrition management, massage and herbal or mineral supplements. Yet we as a Western thinking and orientated nation try to split TCM into its separate components. A correctly trained and recognised practitioner of TCM should receive training and treat his/her clients in ALL areas of TCM not just one aspect; such as acupuncture.

 Prof. Master Dr. Jirong Zhang discusses and explains his 3 Treasure system with
Mrs. Elvianna Dorante-Day CEO of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Public Health Journal.

The Chinese Medicine Board and their "expert" witness Dr. Simon Barraclough who has a BA in political science an MA Economic and Political Science and Phd (undisclosed) none of which came from China and no experience or qualifications in any form of TCM stated in the hearing:

"Based upon my investigations I have concluded that OIUCM is little more than a "degree mill" offering qulaifications for payment"

Moreover, that:

"In, summary my opinion is that Mr. Zhang's {note the deliberate disrespect} claimed doctoral qulaification and standing as a professor lacks legitimacy"

I would suggest that Dr. Barraclough and the Chinese Medicine Registration Board firstly review the following links and then ask Prof. Dr. Githanjan Mendis, M.B.B.S., M.D., F.R.C.P.(Edin), F.R.C.P.(IEng). F.C.C.P., Ph.D. Neurologist and Chairman of the Board of Directors of OIUCM, and Professor. Dr. Sir. Melvyn Sydney-Smith Director of the Australian College of  Holistic Medicine what they think and why they are also not under investigation for the same issue having received qualifications - recognised in Australia from the same institution. Not to mention British Psychotherapist Dr. David Boadella, Professor Dame Dianna Mossop and countless others around the world who have also received degrees either earned or awarded for recognition of dedication and comittment to World Health from OIUCM. Maybe they should also be forced to attend the 48th Anniversary year of Medicina Alternativa during its World Congress of Integrated Medicines at Bandaranaike Memorial Conference Hall, Colombo, Sri Lanka on the 12th -14th November 2010. Whatever the case it is fairly clear that messers Butcher and Casey are clearly defaming Dr. Zhang and making Libelous accusations in print based upon the misleading and incorrect evidence presented at the Victorian Case - that even a miniscual amount of investiagtive reporting, researching and common sense would have exposed.

The article also makes the point of criticsing Dr. Zhang for continually utilising what the Chinese Medicine Board call "illegal and repeated" use of testimonials in his advertising. Well let me add a few more "testimonials" for the world to view. As Dr. Zhang states: "how am I supposed to tell my clients that they cannot express the healing they have received when they offer to represent me as a sign of gratitude for the healing they have received?" 

Mr. Trevor Wheate reads out his letter that he wrote to Hon Kevin Rudd MP
 and Prime Minister of Australia about Master Dr. Jirong Zhang's 3 Treasure healing method

For those who are interested the Royal Brisbane Hospital (RBH) has the full record and clinical data of Mr. Wheates medical condition before, during and after his treatment and amazing recovery by Dr. Zhang so there are NO false accusations or mis-representations. In fact an acknowledged Medical Registrar at one of Victoria's major Hospitals travels from Victoria to Queensland to be treated by Dr. Zhang. He first came to Dr. Zhang for treatment after the Western Medicine system had diagnosed him with bone cancer of the leg and considered that the only form of treatment for the cancer was to amputate the leg. Seven weeks after the initial treatment the three festering, bleeding, ulcerated cancers that "looked like a bullet hole down to the bone" were completly cured. There has been no re-emergence of the Cancer since treatment. This registrar has stated that he will be willing to testify in a court to the treatment he has received from Dr. Zhang. He is not alone and these are not testimonials they are case studies, explained by the best perons to give them - those who have received cures from Chronic conditions western medicine has failed to treat and cure. Why then should Dr. Zhang be victimised for his clients willingness to express the excellent work that he has done?

Turning to the "evidence" that was given as the basis for the "complaints", with which Dr. Zhang was "charged", we find some interesting comments that reveal quite a bit about the TCM knowledge base of both the panel and the Victorian board. For example, one of the complaints that were raised was that one of the three complainants asked for the acupuncture needle to be only left in for three (3) minutes and that Dr. Zhang did not follow this request. Well, let’s take a more objective look at that statement - Would you expect to go in and see your GP and say "Hey, I only want 10mg of Amoxil" when your prescribe for me? No - then how would a patient know or expect ANY practitioner to follow that instruction unless they were themselves an Acupuncturist? Moreover, as recommended in Jayasuria's classic "Clinical Acupuncture", and based on the 3,000 year history of TCM, the nominal time to leave an acupuncture needle in is 15-30 minutes. In fact, in severe conditions the needle may be retained for several hours. Furthermore, the needling time will vary, just like the dose and strength of a medicine, depending on the severity of the sickness/injury being treated. Additionally, there are other variables to consider and I am sure the majority of Acupuncturists would rather they made that decision - not the patient - that is what the qualifications are for and why Dr. Zhang is the Chief Practitioner at his clinics!

Another example of the lack of understanding of Dr. Zhang's treatment methods by the Board and "expert" witnesses was given by two of the three complainants who stated that after inserting the needles Dr. Zhang "left them alone unattended" on the massage table - this as I can personally confirm is the normal treatment regime for Dr. Zhang. The reason for this is because it is not "soothing music" that he puts on before leaving the treatment room but a Qigong meditation DVD designed to relax the client, increase the flow of chi and as stated begin a Qigong meditation session designed to accelerate the healing properties of the Acupuncture session. This is stock standard operating procedure for Dr. Zhang and most of his 8000+ clients would be aware of that - if the Chinese Medicine Registration Board of Victoria had listened to Dr. Zhang and taken him up on his offer of coming to his clinics in Brisbane and observing what he does they would have known that - I guess it would "cost too much" for them to come and see. However, after the ruling against Dr. Zhang Queensland Health and Queensland Health Care Complaints Commission came to visit Dr. Zhang's Coopers Plains clinic and inspect his operation. What the Brisbane times failed to state was that Queensland Health left his clinic very impressed with his clinical skills, professional behaviour and excellent record keeping procedure, and have not been seen or heard of since. They were also impressed to discover, as they were also unaware, that a Public Health student at Flinders University in Adelaide, one of the most recognised health research facilities in the World, was in fact undertaking her Phd dissertation by researching Dr. Zhang's results at his Brisbane clinics. This dissertation is due to be completed at the end of this year and its findings will be made available then.

The concerning thing for Dr. Zhang was that how could the Board overlook the fact that one of the complainants testified that they had "side effects" from taking the medication when the bottle was returned to Dr. Zhang with the seal UNBROKEN! Moreover, that as the patient was dissatisfied he had already entirely reimbursed her fee's - something both the Board and the newspaper report fail to mention. Additionally, that he was criticised for "having a financial interest" in the company that supplied the medication when in fact he had to pay extra to get the labels on the bottles - because he doesn't import them - he buys them from an importer on the Gold Coast who labelled them for him. While we are also on this subject it should be pointed out that the "medication" shark cartilage, wheat grass and squalene are widely available over the counter at both Chemists and Supermarkets in Australia with the same information on the label. Why is he being targeted for this, whilst these products - as he pointed out - have no TGA issues? Moreover, that the "Side-effects" of the medication were not actually side-effects of the medication but the desired effect of the medication. Again, as any of Dr. Zhang's 8,000 clients will tell you the purging clean out is all part of the process. It is not a side effect - it is the desired effect and the result that is anticipated. Furthermore, Dr. Zhang ALWAYS explains this to every client and ensures they understand what is about to happen and why.

The final issue I will address is where the Board query the qualifications, moral standing and professionalism of Dr, Zhang and his staff. Well, can anyone tell me another health facility that they know where the Boss makes you read the bible as a condition of your employment? Dr. Zhang doesn't do that either as he is a devout Buddhist, but he does insist that ALL his staff read and understand the Surangama Sutra if they wish to remain in his employment (You can hear the Sutra by clicking here). Moreover, he has for years followed Taoist teachings and ensures all his staff are morally and academically capable and that they have the experience and training they require. As a Professor and Master of TCM he is more than capable of determining this – as the board should be aware.

By Simon Charles Dorante-Day BA, BEng, M.R.G.C.
(c) DWA 2010.

http://www.humanrightsactioncenter.org
Created by Seth Brau
Produced by Amy Poncher
Music by Rumspringa courtesy Cantora Records