View Single Post
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 06-16-2011, 02:14 AM
Zedn's Avatar
Zedn Zedn is offline
CC Member
Visit my Photo Gallery

 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, NSW
Cobra Make, Engine: RCM, Jag front and rear, LS3
Posts: 1,640
Not Ranked     
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by just dreamin View Post
Well as allways we seem to have got onto another issue. The point of the article was to illustrate that there are options available to challenge rulings and descisions that we assume are cast in stone. This guy challenged the system because he thought it unfair or unreasonable. Its obvious the Admin Apeals Tribunal rejected his apeal so he took it to the next level. The Federal Court thought he had a case and made a few suggestions. Low and behold his car was suddenly allowed in. The moral of the story is, You can sit back and complain all you like and no matter what, not much will change. Or you can do something about it which would require some time, commitment and money.
This is not a legal battle. In most cases the government departments are following the legislation. There is a national piece of legislation that allows state legislation. I can only comment on NSW, but we have the Road and Transport (vehicle Registration) regulation that we must comply with. This legislation authorises the authority to grant exemptions to a particular vehicle to comply with the ADRs. The authority is authorised to grant exemption straight out or exemption subject to conditions. This legislation allows them to grant exemption but doesnt say they have to. If the authority wants to they can turn around and say 'no exemptions' and then all ICVs have to comply with full testing. If this happens you can appeal to the ombudsman and contact the minister, but you are arguing that it is unreasonable to request the requirements, not that a law has been breached.

Last edited by Zedn; 06-16-2011 at 02:17 AM..
Reply With Quote