Crazy laws.

[Yenn]

I deliver meals on wheels to mainly senior citizens. I had to get a police check for that.

 

Ridiculous. Nearly as useless as the ASIC.

 

Just another madcap idea by our government, who are just about stuffing up Australia.

 

 

[nomadpete]

OME, although I don't doubt your accuracy, the push seems to be happening in lots of areas.

 

Tasmania Fire Service required me to get a Blue card before I was permitted to commence training. It seems that our administrators don't question the authorities above them. Our flying club asked all members to get a Blue card when we gave a scholarship to a 15 year old. Most of us would never even meet this student. Luckily, after a while, our CFI seemed to stop asking.

 

Maybe it's fear of litigation driving the push.

 

BTW, I think it's called a Working with Vulnerable People card? Not just children.

 

 

[spacesailor]

FREE !

 

I am led to believe the NSW firefighters Have been Told to pay-up, or go home.

 

NO & if or but's.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[old man emu]

BTW, I think it's called a Working with Vulnerable People card?

 

Since the matter comes under State law, each State will name the thing differently. It seems that Tassie issues a card, like a driver's licence and it is blue in colour. NSW simply emails the applicant a pro forma letter which contains the applicant's WWCC ID number.

 

The Federal Government in providing for Aged Care, requires employees to have a “National Criminal History Record Check”,  which is a national report prepared by the Australian Federal Police or by a State or Territory police force or service. Once again, stupid administrators won't accept a WWCC as being the same as the naional check.

 

 

[spacesailor]

1984 BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.

 

Watch that old film if you dare !.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[old man emu]

FREE !

 

I am led to believe the NSW firefighters Have been Told to pay-up, or go home.

 

NO & if or but's.

 

spacesailor

 

Paying for these checks by firies and ambos is the subject of industrial action (Police are exempt under the legislation). They are asking why they should need a check if:

 

1. For firies, working with children is not a usual part of their duties and they can't be said to meet any of the conditions the legislation defines as child-related work
    
   
2. For ambos, they do work with children as health care providers, and therefore meet the requirements to have one. However, they are saying that the employer should carry out the check as part of the suitability for employment process, and that the ambos themselves would not have to pay for it.
    
   

 

As I said before, the amount that has to be paid for these checks is exorbitant, given that the data is readily accessed. 

 

 

[Bruce]

Thats exactly right OME. The employee should not have to pay for the stupid check. Then the employer can do all the checking they like.

 

Especially, as you say, the price has been jacked up out of all reason.

 

I'm surprised that volunteer firefighters have not said that free checks are a condition of their volunteering. I sure wouldn't pay.

 

 

[Bruce]

But I note that it has been stated that the check is free for volunteers...  is this generally abided by?

 

 

[octave]

I am required to have a WWC as a music teacher.  I am not especially bothered by it, being self employed it is just another business expense.  My check lasts for 5 years and the last renewal was I think $80 which is $16 per year (think it is about $93 per 5 years now)   I can understand why a volunteer would be upset by this and in my opinion it should be free.  When I worked in Canberra about 10 years ago they did not have or requirement for  any kind of specific check however I got myself a Federal police record check which I did not need but hey it was good in a business sense.

 

I guess the question is who should pay. 

 

 

[red750]

Charging for anything that can be obtained at the push of a button seems to be the go. What about birth and death certificates, for example?

 

 

[Yenn]

I was a volounteer for years in the SES. I was actually doing the rescue training and also vertical rescue. They decided that to be able to do the vertical rescue we would have to have a first aid certificate. I had held a certificate of the highest order with training free from QATB (Qld Ambulance)

 

Now we had to pay for training to be able to do vertical rescue. I objected to that and as I was the longest standing member there they agreed to pay for the training. OK by me and nobody else knew about it. I did the training and passed 100%. They had a ceremony later to hand out the certificates and wanted me to pay for the certificate. I pointed out that they had agreed to pay, but they tried to say it was only for the training. I told them where to stuff their certificate and they said if I didn't have a certificate I would not be insured. I also found out that if I didn't have a certificate I could not be sued if what I did was what the man on the "Clapham bus" ie the man in the street thought was reasonable.

 

So you have a certificate to say you know all you need to know and therefore should do the right thing, but if you do the wrong thing you will have insurance. If you don't have a certificate you can do your best and unless you are criminally negligent you can't be sued. You can't even be sued for doing nothing, but if you have the certificate you can be.

 

It is absolute rubbish what happens nowadays.

 

I got out of SES when they decided we had to comply 100% with workplace health and safety, but if a disaster was declared we could do whatever wee considered necessary. That would mean I could be working with people who had never done what was needed.

 

 

[Marty_d]

How the hell is payment for the certificate separate from payment for the course?

 

You pay for the course (or your work does), get the certificate, it's all part of it.

 

I've done quite a few courses for work, have never heard of the certificate being charged separately.

 

 

[gareth lacey]

I have a Qld Blue card (working with children) i volunteer in school, i was asked to volunteer to drive a aged care bus from a home ,ok i said , then was told would need to sit in a star chamber to see if i was suitable and get a blue card for aged care (WTF) i have a card for kids i say but no wanted all this bullshit as well as a safety course cert i said i am giving my time for free i have had a police check for my blue card you pay for it  ,no cant do so i said ,stick it its not worth the trouble and MY expense to give you 8 hrs labour for this sxxt

 

 

[Bruce]

So you were going to be a volunteer but the card was not going to be free? So you were going to have to pay to be a volunteer?  I can't see how they get any volunteers at all.

 

 

[gareth lacey]

Correct my blue card is free through the school when they sign off qld education pay for it but seems to be if volunteering for the aged you pay

 

 

[old man emu]

then was told would need to get a blue card for aged care 

 

i have a card for kids

 

 

 

As I said:

 

The Federal Government in providing for Aged Care, requires employees to have a “National Criminal History Record Check”,  which is a national report prepared by the Australian Federal Police or by a State or Territory police force or service. Once again, stupid administrators won't accept a WWCC as being the same as the national check.

 

[Bruce]

There you go gareth. They are out of line and I reckon you should complain politically, which means from your local member up through to the prime minister.

 

 

[Bruce]

I was on the committee of our club when this police check stuff came in for instructors and passenger pilots. We made sure that the volunteers themselves didn't have to pay. I wish we had OME there to tell us if we ( the club ) really needed to pay or not.

 

 

[old man emu]

I was on the committee of our club when this police check stuff came in for instructors and passenger pilots. We made sure that the volunteers themselves didn't have to pay. I wish we had OME there to tell us if we ( the club ) really needed to pay or not.

 

 

 

Unless your instructors are regularly instructing persons under the age of 18 years, they don't need a WWCC, or equivalent. I would suggest that if your club does provide training to children, then ask your instructors who would like to specialise in training children, then if someone steps up, reimburse that person for the cost of the WWCC and make them King of the Kids. The only flying instructors I can think of who would need a WWCC, for sure, are those providing training for Scouts, Air League or Air Cadets through those organisations' air activities units, and those people would have them as part of their involvement with the organisations anyway.

 

The CFI who is examining a child pursuant to the issue of a licence (or certificate), and that examination is the only unsupervised contact the CFI has with the child, then the CFI does not need a WWCC.

 

The philosophy behind the requirement for an adult to have a WWCC is that if there is regular contact with the child, then the regularity of the contact cannot lead to an unlawful (ie sexual) relationship.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

On another crazy law topic, my brother and sister in law were visiting last week and said there is a law in QLD (they thought) where one was required to have both hands on the steering wheel while driving.. Is that true? Darned hard to change gears if that's the case...

 

 

[Marty_d]

On another crazy law topic, my brother and sister in law were visiting last week and said there is a law in QLD (they thought) where one was required to have both hands on the steering wheel while driving.. Is that true? Darned hard to change gears if that's the case...

 

Crazy laws in QLD??  Surely you jest...

 

 

[Yenn]

We have lots of laws about driving, but what upsets me is the obligatory in car interview done on TV.

 

It seems that just about any program which interviews people about their life, has to have a camera set up so that they drive down the street, talking about their pet program. They definitely don't have both hands on the wheel and often don't have eyes on the road.

 

 

[willedoo]

Crazy laws in QLD??  Surely you jest...

 

Never, Marty. It just couldn't happen.

 

What Jerry is referring to might be in the new distracted driver laws, but I haven't checked them out yet. The government still has those big brother electronic propaganda sign towers on the highway north of Brisbane. They're very distracting as you have to take your eyes off the road to read them. The best I ever saw read " Distracted drivers are dangerous drivers". Only a public servant could possibly dream that sort of stuff up.

 

There are some strange laws though, like the unsecured load laws. A bloke in Toowoomba got a $300 fine for having a pair of thongs in the back of his ute, but was lucky as the police can levy a $300 fine per item if they wish. A friend of mine was told by a police officer that they can fine you $300 per leaf if you have a few leaves in the back of a ute. In the same area, another bloke thought he was doing the right thing and had a cargo net over the back of the trayback, but it was one of the ones with the larger mesh. If the police officer can physically remove any item from between the mesh squares, it's a fine. In this case, he pulled out four small items and wrote the driver up for $1,200. Same town, a lady copped $300 for having her handbag on the passenger seat.

 

There's some good local laws as well. Where I live, the council can levy a $150 on the spot fine if the neighbours complain about the smell of your cooking. I think it started with people living next door to Thais who used a lot of fish sauce. The crazy thing is, what's to stop them complaining about their neighbours cooking a steak. This sort of legal buffoonery is all funded by our taxes and rates.

 

 

[Bruce]

wow...what a good argument for automatic cars. Personally, I have often had my left hand up her dress in the innocent belief that you didn't need both hands on the steering. Changing gears would be a bugger huh.

 

 

[old man emu]

Back to the source:

 

Australian Road Rule 297:  Driver to have proper control of vehicle

 

(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle unless the driver has proper control of the vehicle.

 

"proper control" is not defined in the Rules, so it is up to the Complainant (Police) to prove that the driver did not have "proper control". 

 

Once again, the legal system puts money into the Government coffers.  How many of you and your family members have the understanding of Court procedure to make Police prove their allegation?