SEND LAWYERS. The Nickster may HAVE to consult with us

**Ixion** · 5th November 2009, 14:20

Hitherto I thought that the ACC levies were set as regulations , solely under ministerial discretion, and the only consultation available was under S331 of the Act

Consultation requirements for regulations relating to levy setting

(1) The Minister may not recommend the making of regulations under this Act prescribing the rates of levies unless the Minister has first received and considered a recommendation from the Corporation made in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) The Corporation must consult levy payers before recommending to the Minister that such regulations be made, and that obligation to consult is satisfied if—
(a) the Corporation publicly notifies its intention to recommend to the Minister that such regulations be made by publishing in the Gazette, and in a daily newspaper circulating in each of the cities of Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin, a notice—
(i) stating that the Corporation is proposing to recommend that such regulations be made; and
(ii) [Repealed]
(iii) explaining the Corporation's proposal to recommend the making of the proposed regulations, or stating where a copy of that explanation may be obtained; and
(iv) stating where copies of the Corporation's policy on fully funding outstanding claims liabilities may be obtained; and
(v) stating where copies of any actuarial valuation on which levies are based may be obtained; and
(vi) inviting members of the public to make written submissions on the proposed regulations; and
(vii) stating the last date on which the Corporation will receive written submissions on the proposed regulations (which date must be not less than 28 days after the date of the publication of the notice in the Gazette); and
(b) the Corporation considers all submissions on the proposed regulations that are received by the Corporation not later than the date stated under paragraph (a)(vii).

(4) The Corporation must, after recommending to the Minister the making of regulations under this Act prescribing the rates of levies, publish in the Gazette, and in a daily newspaper circulating in each of the cities of Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin, a notice—
(a) stating that such a recommendation has been made; and
(b) stating where copies of the recommendation, and any information that accompanied the recommendation, may be obtained.

(5) Nothing in this section obliges the Minister to accept the Corporation's recommendation or prevents the Minister recommending that the regulations prescribe rates of levies different from the rates recommended by the Corporation.

(6) The consultation procedure contained in subsection (2) constitutes a code that sets out all the obligations of the Corporation in relation to consultation over the process of recommending to the Minister that regulations be made.

Meaningless of course, since ACC historically totally ignores all submissions.

And, that view is correct as regards the setting of levies.

BUT - this time round the ACC do not merely want to up the levies - they want to introduce new classifications. And THAT it appears may be a horse of a different colour.

because S 330 says

Consultation requirements for regulations relating to classifications, risk rating, or treatment injury

The Minister may not make any recommendation in respect of regulations made under section 329(f) or (g) or (l) or (m), or in relation to the Treatment Injury Account, without first consulting such persons or organisations as the Minister considers appropriate having regard to the subject-matter of the proposed regulations.

Sect 329(l) is us

establishing a system for differential levies, for the purposes of the Motor Vehicle Account, for categories referred to in section 216:

OK, it says "as the Minister considers appropriate" . But it would, I submit be almost impossible to persuade a court that the the Minister could reasonably promulgate regulations that apply specifically and ONLY to motorcycles, without consulting ANY motorcycle organisations.

So I think he HAS to formally consult us. As a SEPARATE thing to the ACC consultation thing.

And it means we must explicitly state that any meeting with the Minister on the 17th is NOT a meeting for consultation under S330.

I bet that's why the bastard agreed to meet us!

**avgas** · 5th November 2009, 14:32

Originally Posted by Ixion

I bet that's why the bastard agreed to meet us!

Yep - to put in the words of US attorneys.... signed sealed and served.
Shame really cos if we had known then what we had known now we could have just avoided the prick and nothing would have happened.

Shame its an ACT too - if it was a principle we could have weaselled round it

**Ozzie** · 5th November 2009, 14:33

Faark my head hurts.

I believe you, I think, do we have a legal bean in amongst us that can look into this, or confirm Les' take on it?

I would consider that BRONZ would be the only such formal group yes?

If so, the BIKEIO is not a BRONZ representation is it?

**Mully** · 5th November 2009, 14:37

Excellent.

Good plan Les. Make sure we scream it far and wide that the 17th is not a "consultation"

Do we have any lawyers here? Check amongst the Harley riders....

**Ixion** · 5th November 2009, 14:38

Ulysses is relevant. Maybe others.

Basically any legal entity that can reasonably claim to represent motorcyclists.

The BIKEOI is a BRONZ representation. But that is irrelevant. A protest ride cannot be considered consultation.

**Bald Eagle** · 5th November 2009, 14:38

Absolutely brilliant strategy.

Make him talk to us.

Our disciples need to be crystal clear on the fact that this is not a consultation.

**StoneY** · 5th November 2009, 14:42

Far as I am concerned Ulysses represents Ulysses not NZ Motorcyclists (whatever Peter Mac wants to believe)

BRONZ is well known as a NZ motorcyclists voice

Good point regarding it NOT being a consultation on the BIKEOI, we must make that perfectly clear to all who go up to see Nicky in his office

If he wants to 'consult' set up a time and place but dont ruin our protest

**Mully** · 5th November 2009, 14:43

Originally Posted by Ixion

Ulysses is relevant. Maybe others.

HOG
RAT

Mongrel Mob
Black Power

**Ixion** · 5th November 2009, 14:44

Originally Posted by avgas

Yep - to put in the words of US attorneys.... signed sealed and served.
Shame really cos if we had known then what we had known now we could have just avoided the prick and nothing would have happened.

Shame its an ACT too - if it was a principle we could have weaselled round it

no, no. Nothing HAS happened.

We don't need to weasel round anything. He's the one that has to weasel

The Act more or less says that he must consult us (unless he can find some other significant group of motorcyclists that are representative - I'll alert Howard ).

I strongly suspect someone alerted him to this - so he thinks "Oh well, I'll agree to a 10 minute meeting with these troublemakers on the 17th, then claim that was 'sonsultation" ".

But - we know now - BEFORE the meeting. And we will formally say "this meeting does not constitute consultation within the terms of S330. We are very happy to consult with the Minister , but that must be in a more formal setting , proper agenda etc. Shall we set up an inital appointment?"

And, this demolishes the stock response from MPs "Send in a submission to ACC"

If anyone says that to you reply "Yes. I have. but, the Act requires that the Minister consult with us. Sect 330 you know. Quite different matter to S331 , as of course you know".

**Str8 Jacket** · 5th November 2009, 14:45

What about race clubs like VMCC, BEARS etc?

**firefighter** · 5th November 2009, 14:55

Originally Posted by Ixion

Ulysses is relevant. Maybe others.

Basically any legal entity that can reasonably claim to represent motorcyclists

Hardly. Ulysses does'nt represent anyone under 60 and not on a cruiser.

I'm 26 with a Naked bike. I cannot join Ulysses.

Surely BRONZ is the only fair organisation for this? Is there another organisation in NZ that does'nt discriminate or supports all groups?

Personally, I feel BRONZ is probably the only neutral organisation, and therefore the only organisation which should be representing NZ motorcyclists.

**Ixion** · 5th November 2009, 15:00

There is no specific definition. Just "appropriate".

the Mongrel Mob would probably not be considered appropriate by a court , on account of them being criminals and stuff.

The Minister may consult one overarching representative group if there is one : or a range of groups representing different aspects of the affected parties. So he might consult Ulyssess, and SMC old and young. But he cannot claim to be ignorant of BRONZ. And he cannot say that BRONZ is inappropriate.

And anyway, both Ulysses (more or less) and SMC and TOMCC and almost everyone else I can thinkof, are all opposed to the levies.

The point is he MUST consult.

Hitherto I thought that there was no statutory requirement for the Minister to consult. Only ACC . I was wrong. The inclusion of the split by cc brings in S 330. They may regret that idea.