Working the Std. setup

[Steve]

Got several bases covered, both elect and opposition govt. Media, hmmm, I am still undecided about that one - last thing we need is more sensationalist hype about revheads on the streets in 'dangerous' cars.

[GTRgeoff]

Yeah I agree on the dangerous stuff getting out of hand in the media, but they are putting a blanket policy on all modifications to suspension height etc and choosing to ignore federal standards and adr's.

Make it clear you do not support illegal activity or hoonish behaviour, you simply want to exercise you right to modify your motor vehicle in line with the relevant national standards and rules as agreed to by the state govt, and oppose the draconian interperetations applied by the state authorities in an unjust and unconstitutional manner.

Throw your submission to DOTARS and to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) as well.

I'm sure your a smart guy, and can make this work out but really, dissemination to the widest audience is the key to playing in politics when you have the moral and constitutional high ground.

"It's the vibe...."

[MattyB]

steve. i could be wrong here, but if you got your car knocked back with adr approved parts you could take the inspector to court personally an sue him personally for damages. this might not get your car passed but it would shake ever inspector to think twice an really do there job how its suppose to be done. adr is there for a reason. im sure any shit lawer could win a case with that.

thats just my two cents of input.

[GTRgeoff]

If regency are taking money for the work/inspections they do and are not consistent or mislead their 'customers' then it is an offence under the trade practices act and government is not exempt, particularly if they are making customer pay financially.

[Steve]

NOT according to the ACCC if you could tell me who is a higher authority, or a contact name there - great, but I know what I was told, not hear say, but what I was told by the ACCC.

[Steve]

MattyB, do you know of anyone who has done this, cos unless it has been done, its speculation, no?

And how does this ADR approved part thing work? You would have to provide proof that it is an ADR approved, or OEM item. Not the regency inspector prove it isnt. See the problem? All the inspector would have to do is say I dont believe xxx is an ADR approved item, and bingo, you now have the burden of proof. Nice neat and really easy for the inspector.

Like I said, not always as easy as it sounds.

[GTRgeoff]

Steve

I am only relying on our legal training provided by a major legal firm that works for defence, who also cited examples where TPA was used against state and commonwealth entities under, i think, section 52, misleading customers. I'll check my references tomorrow. I have also run the clause from SA law by a few other guys and they are shocked that that law still remains. Need my lawyer friends back at work.

[GTRgeoff]

got off my butt and did a search.

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974

- SECT 52

Misleading or deceptive conduct

(1) A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

(2) Nothing in the succeeding provisions of this Division shall be taken as limiting by implication the generality of subsection (1).

Note: For rules relating to representations as to the country of origin of goods, see Division 1AA (sections 65AA to 65AN).

This is federal law and applies to all govt depts conducting trade, receiving money for services etc hence the ACCC greyness

[Steve]

I think the problem may exist, as regency can cite a duty of care to ensure vehicles are roadworthy and therefore err on the side of caution. Also, they arent doing trade per say, as they do not make a profit.

It would be a can of worms, as I am sure most other states charge a fee for an inspection.

Could any of your legal friends take a look at a copy of ADR37? My legal contact fell through on this one. Basically I am trying to add weight to the arguement by pointing out that it doesnt actually apply to vehicles over 5 year/80,000 kms as stated in the ADR, but regency say that the car still must comply with emissions laws, and have set them at ADR 37 limits.

It would be a good one to crack;)

[GTRgeoff]

One of many to crack, but they do not have to operate at a profit, only receive funds for a service or goods of value, and this is essentially a service which you can pay for through commercial outlets in most states, therefore they are subject to the TPA. Nice litmus test huh?

I'll check out adr 37 with some legals when they return to work.

Duty of care is also no defence if they are choosing to ignore the findings of a duly recognised and qualified professional such as vehicle engineers. From what you say, only the minister, and not his representatives may choose not to recognise an engineering judgement.

They can Run....But they'll die Tired!!!! (just a quote from one of our weapons suppliers )

[Steve]

Duty of care is a defence, as currently they have the final say, and are the ones that give final approval - unlike other states where the approved person/engineer who does the mods is the one who states whether or not the car is roadworthy.

As there is no commercial outlet in SA that provides inspections, argueably the inspections have no commercial value here in SA.

I would really love it if this task was passed to the business sector, in the hands of professionals.

The minister has the power to grant exemption, or one of his duly appointed representatives - of which work at regency. The wording is 'may' grant exemption, therefore no entitlement actually exists. Also, if the inspector reasonably beleives (nice loose term) that what ever the engineer has approved may not be roadworthy, he has an obligation to not allow it.

Really dark ages beaurocratic red tape bull shit. In the past (over 12-18months ago) there was never a problem, as those in power at regency, it woud appear, were more lenient.

[Bl4cK32]

I'd just like to say i love the work Steve and now skylinegeoff are doing. I still believe in the saying "Its not what u know, its who you know."

Public Enemy said it best "Fight the Power":headbang: