Written By: Jeff Turnbull
February 19, 2009
Australian workers are being exposed to conditions that have not
improved since the industrial revolution, a workplace chief says.
His comments come after two men suffered horrific injuries while
carrying out routine maintenance work on a press.
One man lost his hand while the other suffered a badly crushed hand.
The accident happened in the early hours of Thursday as they
carried out maintenance work on a press at a Tullamarine factory.
WorkSafe Victoria, which is investigating the accident, said the
machine started up, trapping their hands, around 1.30am (AEDT).
The accidents came one day after an 18-year-old man died when he
was caught up in a press at a cardboard factory in Thomastown.
There have been four workplace deaths in the state so far this year,
including that of firefighter David Balfour when a tree fell on him
near Marysville earlier this week.
WorkSafe Victoria executive director John Merritt said the accidents
reinforced his concern that many employers and workers had much more
to do to create safer workplaces.
"The reality is that in too many Victorian workplaces, workers are
still exposed to the things that were killing and maiming people at
the start of the industrial revolution," Mr Merritt said on Thursday.
"Unguarded machines along with inadequate training, poor supervision
and dangerous work practices lead to many amputations, crushings and
other serious injuries and deaths each year."
He said the obligations on employers and workers under Victoria's
health and safety laws are clear and waiting until someone was hurt
before safety problems are fixed was not an option.
He said people were falling into unguarded machines - something that
occurred in 1809 and is still happening in 2009.
"In some ways it is worse because today's machines are bigger,
faster and stronger," Mr Merritt said.
A workplace safety conference will be held in Melbourne in March.
It will show that one in three supervisors say their senior
management are not serious about safety while nine per cent
say their bosses are "in denial", Mr Merritt said.
WorkSafe Victoria said 22 people died in Victorian businesses
last year while another 30,000 were injured.
© 2009 AAP
Showing posts with label IME's VWA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IME's VWA. Show all posts
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
YOU HAVE BEEN PUT ON NOTICE!!!
WCV's has been looking into the legal rights of Australian citizens and the
laws used by Government to either destroy or enrich our lives as it citizens.
We have questioned the legality of many of the systems used within
Worksafe Victoria and have found some startling facts.
We have shown that many of the governments representatives are not
providing a duty of care to their constituents and also that many of the
acts and legislation's in force may not be totally legal and within the
appropriate charters created for us as Australian citizens.
We have posted the following document which shows how the system
has been manipulated and controlled via the Parliament and its members.
WCV's questions the legality of the Accident Compensation Act?
The following has been taken from the basic fraud site listed in the
references:
From possibly as early as 1919 every Australian Federal & State Politician,
Judge, Magistrate, Defence Force Personnel, Federal & State Police Officer,
Sheriff, Local Mayor, etc., in other words the people in Authority, have
ALL, either knowingly or not, committed an ‘Act of Treason’ against the
Australian People, by swearing allegiance and subscribing to an oath to serve
Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland
and therefore the government of a Power foreign to Australia.
By all accounts Australia was recognised worldwide as an Independent Sovereign
Nation after WWI, when we were invited to join as a founding member, the League
of Nations in 1919.
Only fully self-governing nations could be members of the League of Nations:
see http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=94.
After WWII we were once again recognised worldwide as an Independent
Sovereign Nation when we were asked to join the United Nations in 1945,
which we did on the provision that we, like all other member nations, would
adhere to the UN Charter and abide by the International Law set in place.
Since 1919 the two Monarchies of the United Kingdoms have allegedly
appointed a Governor-General, who have in turn sworn into office, the
Federal Government of Australia.
This Federal Government then had the rights and privileges to administer
the laws and run the ‘Commonwealth of Australia’. However, these Monarchs
have had NO legal basis to do so!
Elizabeth II has NEVER been crowned the “Queen of Australia” and has NO
legal authority within Australia! British Law clearly cites the preclusion of the
U.K. monarch from any political intervention in a foreign land!!! (Under
International Law it is also forbidden for a Member Nation State of the United
Nations, to apply their legislation, within another Member Nation State).
If the Queen then has no legal power to appoint the Governor-General,
this position is totally invalid. This would also mean a Federal Government
legally cannot be sworn into office, so the Australian Parliament is not a
valid organ representing the Sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia
and cannot pass any laws which can have valid application within Australia,
or anywhere else for that matter. The only law that can have valid application
in Australia is international law, and possibly the common law of Australia.
Do you not think it strange or curious that Kevin Rudd – unlike previous
Australian Prime Ministers - changed the wording of the ‘Oath of Office’ to
“I, Kevin Michael Rudd, do swear that I will well and truly serve the
Commonwealth of Australia, her land and her people in the office of
Prime Minister” and excluded the swearing of allegiance to Queen
Elizabeth II by not also stating "I will be faithful and bear true allegiance
to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second"?
See: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/majesty-missing-and-so-
was-the-medias-focus/2007/12/07/1196813020145.html
Does he think that by doing this, it will absolve him of his involvement in
treason against the Australian people? You may then start to understand
how the appointment of our Australian Governments, the various government
departments and our Australian Constitution are and have been for
decades – fraudulent, illegal and invalid.
Have your ever broken a traffic law and been stopped by the police?
Did you notice the British Crown on the car, uniform, warrant card or the
infringement notice? They have sworn an oath of allegiance to "Queen Elizabeth II".
Now let us say we elect to contest their complaint in a court - We are
then served with a summons and commanded to appear, in the name of
Her Majesty.
We then appear in a court which proudly displays the British coat of arms.
The Magistrates Act 1991 prescribes the oath which the Magistrate must
take (Magistrates Act Regulations 1993 – Form of Oath or Affirmation) and
the prosecutor plus the complainant (Police) both have sworn similar oaths
to that of the Magistrate. They will then proceed to impose British law upon
you.
Now hold it for a minute - are you not a citizen of an independent sovereign
nation? A member state of the U.N.?
The whole Judicial System in Australia is not only fraudulent but also invalid!!!
Most Judges (especially those in the High, Federal and State Supreme Courts)
are aware of this invalidity and know that their own appointments are totally
unlawful. However, these same Judges have continued to preside and rule
against hundreds of people, even when the invalidity of these Judges, were
actually questioned and challenged in documents filed in their own courts
and who were aware of this when making their rulings!
Innocent people have been ordered to pay fines, had property repossessed,
been forced into bankruptcy or imprisoned by dishonest Judges who are more
interested in protecting their own livelihoods, positions, power and the status
quo.
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is also an organization with NO
lawful authority. Yet people once again have had their lives ruined to the
point of suicide for being unable to pay their supposed taxes.
For any person reading this paper, who participates in perpetrating this
fraud against any Australian citizen after being made aware of these facts,
will be in breach of a Human Rights violation and in due course will be
charged in ‘The International Court’ for Human Rights abuse.
By way of a parallel situation, the report of the International Criminal
Tribunal (Yugoslavia) reveals that, this Tribunal considered human rights
abuses as more serious than war crimes and placed ‘economic deprivation’
at the upper end of the penalty scale. Any person directly involved in an
illegal act of economic deprivation (for which the United Nation’s penalty
scale is from five (5) to twenty-five (25) years).
You should now take the time to consider your position, as you have been
given notice and as an individual with access to the Internet, telephone and
postal service if you continue to act in any manner against an Australian citizen,
you will be denied any defence as to your lack of knowledge of the facts
outlined herein.
Please remember that, in matters involving human rights,
individuals are considered to be solely responsible for their
actions and the “I was only doing my job”, Nuremberg defences
of ‘acting on advice’, ‘acting under direction’, ‘acting under orders’
or any justification which involves a ‘superior authority’
(such as an unsafe court decision) does not present as an
acceptable defence.
In addition, you should note that an International Criminal Tribunal can
authorise any reparations that it deems fit. Accordingly, individual offenders
may be subject to ‘open ended’ liability. Moreover, advice received from
counsels in the United Kingdom is that the compensation that will be awarded
will be in the nature of “extraordinary punitive” damages AGAINST ANY
OFFENDER!
As they say, don’t shoot the messenger - these are legal facts and not legal
opinion! For your peace of mind, we would recommend that YOU do your
own personal research into these matters.
WEBSITE REFERENCES:
www.basicfraud.com
www.members.westnet.com.au/unrealneil
net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/versailles.html
www.statusquo.org/aru_html/html/GovGen.html
web.archive.org/web/20001204150500/http:/www.institutetr.com.au
www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/Principality04.htm
www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/08/1091903444867.html
www.principalityofcamside.cc/Audio/OzAudioIntro.htm
members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/young_and_free.htm
laws used by Government to either destroy or enrich our lives as it citizens.
We have questioned the legality of many of the systems used within
Worksafe Victoria and have found some startling facts.
We have shown that many of the governments representatives are not
providing a duty of care to their constituents and also that many of the
acts and legislation's in force may not be totally legal and within the
appropriate charters created for us as Australian citizens.
We have posted the following document which shows how the system
has been manipulated and controlled via the Parliament and its members.
WCV's questions the legality of the Accident Compensation Act?
The following has been taken from the basic fraud site listed in the
references:
From possibly as early as 1919 every Australian Federal & State Politician,
Judge, Magistrate, Defence Force Personnel, Federal & State Police Officer,
Sheriff, Local Mayor, etc., in other words the people in Authority, have
ALL, either knowingly or not, committed an ‘Act of Treason’ against the
Australian People, by swearing allegiance and subscribing to an oath to serve
Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland
and therefore the government of a Power foreign to Australia.
By all accounts Australia was recognised worldwide as an Independent Sovereign
Nation after WWI, when we were invited to join as a founding member, the League
of Nations in 1919.
Only fully self-governing nations could be members of the League of Nations:
see http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=94.
After WWII we were once again recognised worldwide as an Independent
Sovereign Nation when we were asked to join the United Nations in 1945,
which we did on the provision that we, like all other member nations, would
adhere to the UN Charter and abide by the International Law set in place.
Since 1919 the two Monarchies of the United Kingdoms have allegedly
appointed a Governor-General, who have in turn sworn into office, the
Federal Government of Australia.
This Federal Government then had the rights and privileges to administer
the laws and run the ‘Commonwealth of Australia’. However, these Monarchs
have had NO legal basis to do so!
Elizabeth II has NEVER been crowned the “Queen of Australia” and has NO
legal authority within Australia! British Law clearly cites the preclusion of the
U.K. monarch from any political intervention in a foreign land!!! (Under
International Law it is also forbidden for a Member Nation State of the United
Nations, to apply their legislation, within another Member Nation State).
If the Queen then has no legal power to appoint the Governor-General,
this position is totally invalid. This would also mean a Federal Government
legally cannot be sworn into office, so the Australian Parliament is not a
valid organ representing the Sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia
and cannot pass any laws which can have valid application within Australia,
or anywhere else for that matter. The only law that can have valid application
in Australia is international law, and possibly the common law of Australia.
Do you not think it strange or curious that Kevin Rudd – unlike previous
Australian Prime Ministers - changed the wording of the ‘Oath of Office’ to
“I, Kevin Michael Rudd, do swear that I will well and truly serve the
Commonwealth of Australia, her land and her people in the office of
Prime Minister” and excluded the swearing of allegiance to Queen
Elizabeth II by not also stating "I will be faithful and bear true allegiance
to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second"?
See: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/majesty-missing-and-so-
was-the-medias-focus/2007/12/07/1196813020145.html
Does he think that by doing this, it will absolve him of his involvement in
treason against the Australian people? You may then start to understand
how the appointment of our Australian Governments, the various government
departments and our Australian Constitution are and have been for
decades – fraudulent, illegal and invalid.
Have your ever broken a traffic law and been stopped by the police?
Did you notice the British Crown on the car, uniform, warrant card or the
infringement notice? They have sworn an oath of allegiance to "Queen Elizabeth II".
Now let us say we elect to contest their complaint in a court - We are
then served with a summons and commanded to appear, in the name of
Her Majesty.
We then appear in a court which proudly displays the British coat of arms.
The Magistrates Act 1991 prescribes the oath which the Magistrate must
take (Magistrates Act Regulations 1993 – Form of Oath or Affirmation) and
the prosecutor plus the complainant (Police) both have sworn similar oaths
to that of the Magistrate. They will then proceed to impose British law upon
you.
Now hold it for a minute - are you not a citizen of an independent sovereign
nation? A member state of the U.N.?
The whole Judicial System in Australia is not only fraudulent but also invalid!!!
Most Judges (especially those in the High, Federal and State Supreme Courts)
are aware of this invalidity and know that their own appointments are totally
unlawful. However, these same Judges have continued to preside and rule
against hundreds of people, even when the invalidity of these Judges, were
actually questioned and challenged in documents filed in their own courts
and who were aware of this when making their rulings!
Innocent people have been ordered to pay fines, had property repossessed,
been forced into bankruptcy or imprisoned by dishonest Judges who are more
interested in protecting their own livelihoods, positions, power and the status
quo.
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is also an organization with NO
lawful authority. Yet people once again have had their lives ruined to the
point of suicide for being unable to pay their supposed taxes.
For any person reading this paper, who participates in perpetrating this
fraud against any Australian citizen after being made aware of these facts,
will be in breach of a Human Rights violation and in due course will be
charged in ‘The International Court’ for Human Rights abuse.
By way of a parallel situation, the report of the International Criminal
Tribunal (Yugoslavia) reveals that, this Tribunal considered human rights
abuses as more serious than war crimes and placed ‘economic deprivation’
at the upper end of the penalty scale. Any person directly involved in an
illegal act of economic deprivation (for which the United Nation’s penalty
scale is from five (5) to twenty-five (25) years).
You should now take the time to consider your position, as you have been
given notice and as an individual with access to the Internet, telephone and
postal service if you continue to act in any manner against an Australian citizen,
you will be denied any defence as to your lack of knowledge of the facts
outlined herein.
Please remember that, in matters involving human rights,
individuals are considered to be solely responsible for their
actions and the “I was only doing my job”, Nuremberg defences
of ‘acting on advice’, ‘acting under direction’, ‘acting under orders’
or any justification which involves a ‘superior authority’
(such as an unsafe court decision) does not present as an
acceptable defence.
In addition, you should note that an International Criminal Tribunal can
authorise any reparations that it deems fit. Accordingly, individual offenders
may be subject to ‘open ended’ liability. Moreover, advice received from
counsels in the United Kingdom is that the compensation that will be awarded
will be in the nature of “extraordinary punitive” damages AGAINST ANY
OFFENDER!
As they say, don’t shoot the messenger - these are legal facts and not legal
opinion! For your peace of mind, we would recommend that YOU do your
own personal research into these matters.
WEBSITE REFERENCES:
www.basicfraud.com
www.members.westnet.com.au/unrealneil
net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/versailles.html
www.statusquo.org/aru_html/html/GovGen.html
web.archive.org/web/20001204150500/http:/www.institutetr.com.au
www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/Principality04.htm
www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/08/1091903444867.html
www.principalityofcamside.cc/Audio/OzAudioIntro.htm
members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/young_and_free.htm
Sunday, 2 November 2008
IME Agreements with worksafe
SCHEDULE H FROM THE STANDARD IME AGREEMENT
(MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ONLY)
Clause 8.2
Complaints Handling Process
1. A person may complain to the Authority about the Independent Medical
Examiner orally or in writing.
2. If the Authority receives a complaint orally, the complainant will be asked
to confirm the complaint in writing, unless the person can provide a good
reason why the complaint should not be confirmed in writing.
3. The complainant should provide the Authority with his or her name and
other relevant information to identify him or her.
4. The Authority may reject the complaint if:
(a) the complaint is in relation to alleged conduct by an Independent
Medical Examiner occurring more than 12 months prior to the complaint
being made, unless good reason can be shown for the delay in making a
complaint;
(b) the complainant does not confirm the complaint in writing or provide
information as to his or her identity; or
(c) the Authority determines that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious.
5. The Authority will determine the appropriate procedure for handling
any complaint which it receives about the Independent Medical Examiner.
6. A complaint against the professional standards of an Independent Medical
Examiner may be referred by the Authority on the complainant’s behalf to
the Medical Practitioners Board or to the Health Services Commissioner.
7. Complaints, other than those referred to the Medical Practitioners Board
or the Health Services Commissioner, will be investigated by the Authority.
Such complaints may concern the Independent Medical Examiner and/or the
Report Requestor.
8. When the Authority investigates a complaint concerning the Independent
Medical Examiner, it shall:
(a) give the Independent Medical Examiner notice in writing of the complaint;
(b) request the Independent Medical Examiner's response to the complaint;
(c) make any other investigations which it considers appropriate;
(d) advise the complainant of the Independent Medical Examiner's response
to the complaint;
(e) determine whether:
(i) the Independent Medical Examiner's conduct constitutes a breach of the
Agreement; or
(ii) the Independent Medical Examiner’s conduct does not constitute a breach
of the Agreement; and
(f) advise the complainant and the Independent Medical Examiner of the
outcome of the investigation.
9. Where the Authority investigates a complaint about an Independent
Medical Examiner’s reports, it may exercise its powers under sub-clause
10(a) of Schedule E and require the Independent Medical Examiner to
produce to the Authority, for the purpose of review by the Peer Review
Committee, any reports produced by the Independent Medical Examiner
in the past 12 months.
10. Where a determination in accordance with sub-clause 8 (e)(i) of this
Schedule has been made, the Authority may do one or more of the following:
(a) terminate this Agreement; or
(b) issue a formal warning to the Independent Medical Examiner in relation
to his or her conduct; and/or
(c) recommend that the Independent Medical Examiner take other remedial
action; and if such remedial action is recommended:
(d) require the Independent Medical Examiner to report to the Authority
within a specified timeframe whether the remedial action recommended by
the Authority has been taken.
(MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ONLY)
Clause 8.2
Complaints Handling Process
1. A person may complain to the Authority about the Independent Medical
Examiner orally or in writing.
2. If the Authority receives a complaint orally, the complainant will be asked
to confirm the complaint in writing, unless the person can provide a good
reason why the complaint should not be confirmed in writing.
3. The complainant should provide the Authority with his or her name and
other relevant information to identify him or her.
4. The Authority may reject the complaint if:
(a) the complaint is in relation to alleged conduct by an Independent
Medical Examiner occurring more than 12 months prior to the complaint
being made, unless good reason can be shown for the delay in making a
complaint;
(b) the complainant does not confirm the complaint in writing or provide
information as to his or her identity; or
(c) the Authority determines that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious.
5. The Authority will determine the appropriate procedure for handling
any complaint which it receives about the Independent Medical Examiner.
6. A complaint against the professional standards of an Independent Medical
Examiner may be referred by the Authority on the complainant’s behalf to
the Medical Practitioners Board or to the Health Services Commissioner.
7. Complaints, other than those referred to the Medical Practitioners Board
or the Health Services Commissioner, will be investigated by the Authority.
Such complaints may concern the Independent Medical Examiner and/or the
Report Requestor.
8. When the Authority investigates a complaint concerning the Independent
Medical Examiner, it shall:
(a) give the Independent Medical Examiner notice in writing of the complaint;
(b) request the Independent Medical Examiner's response to the complaint;
(c) make any other investigations which it considers appropriate;
(d) advise the complainant of the Independent Medical Examiner's response
to the complaint;
(e) determine whether:
(i) the Independent Medical Examiner's conduct constitutes a breach of the
Agreement; or
(ii) the Independent Medical Examiner’s conduct does not constitute a breach
of the Agreement; and
(f) advise the complainant and the Independent Medical Examiner of the
outcome of the investigation.
9. Where the Authority investigates a complaint about an Independent
Medical Examiner’s reports, it may exercise its powers under sub-clause
10(a) of Schedule E and require the Independent Medical Examiner to
produce to the Authority, for the purpose of review by the Peer Review
Committee, any reports produced by the Independent Medical Examiner
in the past 12 months.
10. Where a determination in accordance with sub-clause 8 (e)(i) of this
Schedule has been made, the Authority may do one or more of the following:
(a) terminate this Agreement; or
(b) issue a formal warning to the Independent Medical Examiner in relation
to his or her conduct; and/or
(c) recommend that the Independent Medical Examiner take other remedial
action; and if such remedial action is recommended:
(d) require the Independent Medical Examiner to report to the Authority
within a specified timeframe whether the remedial action recommended by
the Authority has been taken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)