VEA Vital Processes


VEA Vital Processes.xls

Aid for Section 24 Processing.xls
Correct Interpretation of Remunerative Work.doc
Index Correct Interpretation of Remunerative Work.xls

Public Request to initiate contempt of the High Court proceedings against the Repatriation Commission.doc



In an endeavour to simplify the explanation of some complex processes I've produced the "Microsoft Excel" file "VEA Vital Processes.xls". If you need to you can obtain a free viewer from the Microsoft web site. An easy way to get there is to use the terms "Excel" and "Viewer" in any search engine. The viewers are usually "backwards compatible" so select the latest version.


The Excel file, "VEA Vital Processes.xls", contains a number of worksheets which summarise different issues. Hyperlinks are provided to material that provides the "case law" substantiation of these issues.


The file is in developmental stage but should come up fairly quickly as I have most of the material - it's mainly a matter of including it and hyperlinking it.


The issues are:

  1. "Case law" is not being applied by DVA.

  2. Computer program used by DVA (CCPS) has no independent certification that it complies with relevant case law.

  3. Non application of "Case law" is not detected and remedied by VRB.

  4. Non application of "Case law" is not detected and remedied by AAT.

  5. Seeking opinions from organisational CEOs is like asking person in dock in criminal trial to determine his (or her) case.

  6. Because of "blocking" by CEOs etc matter will only be determined fairly by direction of the Chief Justice of the High Court. (AAT President is a Justice of the Federal Court - so there is a need to go higher than him.)

  7. If legislation needs to be amended to achieve this then so be it.

  8. There is probable contempt of the High Court by Repatriation Commission. High Court has ruled (in Bushell) that in establishing "reasonable hypothesis" it is wrong to "prefer" one doctor's opinion over another's. Repatriation Commission has introduced a "Second Opinion Protocol" which encourages decision makers to disobey High Court precedent. (Precedents are legally binding on lower jurisdictions.)