John Brett

John is a professional engineer with 50 years experience.

John has designed and built many cars, trucks, and vehicle assembly facilities.

John has worked on design of roads, bridges, cranes, transmission towers, and buildings, and operation, maintenance and upgrade of hydro and gas turbine power stations.

John was a LVV Certifier for 13 years. John has long been a whistle-blower, expressing the view that the LVV system is dangerously deficient. John’s authority was revoked in December 2012.

John rides a 1992 Yamaha FJ1200ABS, and is also a keen road and off road cyclist.

APOLOGY

“The LVVTA has brought it to my attention that statements I have made in relation to it and its employees may have been perceived as defamatory.

I sincerely regret that and apologise for any harm caused. I have taken down the statements identified by the LVVTA of concern to it.

I have strong views about the low volume vehicle certification process and intend in the future to direct my energies into the public inquiry now being held in relation to it.”

John Brett 7th October 2015

Disclaimer

1. Disclaimer

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this web site do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the owners of this website or official policies of the owners of this website

2. Copyright Statement and Policy

A. The author of each article published on this web site owns his or her own words.
B. The articles on this web site may be freely redistributed in other media and non-commercial publications as long as the following conditions are met.
(i)    The redistributed article may not be abridged, edited or altered in any way without the express consent of the author.
(ii)   The redistributed article may not be sold for a profit or included in another media or publication that is sold for a profit without the express consent of the author.
(iii)    The articles on this web site may be included in a commercial publication or other media only if prior consent for republication is received from the author. The author may request compensation for republication for commercial uses.

3. Submissions

An article may be submitted for possible publication on this web site in the following manner.

A. Logging in an Author
B. The website owners reserve the right to approve or decline Authors.
C. Articles are published on this web site only on the condition that the author agrees to the terms of the Copyright Statement and Policy above.

Davis Seymour on Free Speech

Dear Friend
If you believe what you read in the news, you probably think I’m a racist who caused another politician to require Police protection. I wrote the article below to explain why that couldn’t be further from the truth, raising questions about how such a story came to be. Unfortunately, the media outlets most responsible for spreading the story, Newshub and Stuff, wouldn’t publish it. I want to thank David Farrar at Kiwiblog for giving me a platform, and ask you to share this email far and wide. We can’t let the cause of free speech be shut down by the media, politicians, and other parts of the establishment.
Yours sincerely,
David Seymour
P.S. If you agree, please forward this email and consider joining ACT here or donating to help us fight for free speech here. Article follows.

David Seymour on free speech
“Let it be known, the public beating has not gone out of fashion.” So goes the quote from the movie Thank You for Smoking, as politicians attack the wildly unpopular protagonist, a tobacco lobbyist.

I’ve found those words to be true over the past week and it has strengthened my belief in the importance of freedom of expression.

To recap, I was asked about Green MP Golriz Ghahraman’s stance on free speech. In her own words “it is vital that the public is involved in a conversation about what speech meets the threshold for being regulated, and what mix of enforcement tools should be used.”

I believe that such an idea, and by extension politicians who promote it, is a danger to our free society. When asked about Ghahraman’s position, in the middle of a 15-minute radio interview, I responded that I thought she was a ‘menace to freedom.’

What has followed has been extraordinary. It has been a lesson in how beat-ups and witch-hunts occur, and why it’s so important that we retain laws that allow us to express ourselves freely. By Tuesday afternoon, I was being asked by media if I was responsible for Ghahraman requiring a security detail. It was clearly a rhetorical question.

Politicians, journalists and other establishment figures have lined up to denounce my comment.

National’s position is that being nice to people who threaten free speech is more important than defending freedom itself. The Greens have said it’s my fault that a few nutcases are threatening an MP. The Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians wrote, asking me to apologise for my comment. I should have known it was not a sincere gesture because the letter was duly released to the media who happily published it with barely a response from me. Other women MPs told me they’d known nothing about it. Surprisingly, Trevor Mallard went on TV and said I was a bully. The Speaker is supposed to be Parliament’s neutral referee.

A number of journalists have attacked me. The media should be the loudest cheerleaders for freedom of expression. Their job relies on freedom of expression, and freedom and democracy rely on the media doing their job.

Were it not for ACT, Parliament would be sleepwalking towards tighter speech laws. The media wouldn’t bat an eyelid. Only a few brave academics might raise their heads above the parapet.

There is something not right about this situation. If my comment endangered Ghahraman, then the response of media and politicians has multiplied its airplay exponentially. That response has been driven by the very people accusing me of endangering Ghahraman.

Because I do not think anyone should be endangered for engaging in political debate, I am reluctant to respond any further, but it’s difficult when the very people who say they’re concerned are using the situation to attack me politically. After all, the media cited a ‘source,’ then Ghahraman herself, when reporting the new security arrangements and attributing them to me.

My detractors believe that expressing a genuinely held view on an important issue makes me responsible for threats of violence. They are wrong. My comments do not come close to giving me such responsibility. And the current law is easily on my side.

This belief absolves the real perpetrators – those making the threats – of responsibility. It also introduces the worrying implication that some MPs are unable to fully participate or be criticised because there are violent threats. It’s a belief that allows violent thugs to set the agenda.

The response to my comment proves we cannot trust government to enforce hate speech laws. Imagine if the state had even greater powers to punish speech at its disposal. Some state agency would now be using that power to investigate and punish a sitting MP’s genuinely-held views.

Hate speech laws turn debate into a popularity contest where the winners get to silence views they don’t like by using the power of the state. Tighter restrictions on speech can only mean giving some agency the power to punish people for saying things that do not incite harm but are merely offensive or distasteful. In other words, what you can think is determined by what is popular.

ACT will continue to defend the critical principle that nobody should ever be punished by the power of the state on the basis of opinion.
If you agree, please consider supporting us.
ACT New Zealand · 27 Gillies Ave, Suite 2.5, Auckland 1021, New Zealand
This email was sent to john@lowvolumevehicle.co.nz. To stop receiving emails, click here.

Back to Court- (again)

The LVVTA is taking me back to the High Court yet again. This will be the fourth time in the High Court, and once in the Court of Appeal.

First case management Teleconference with Justice Palmer occurred on 11th April


Mr A.P. (Tony) Johnson, CEO of the LVVTA

This is for alleged defamation for material that has not been visible on this website for four years or more.

The material started as constructive comment from a group of LVV Certifiers (now all forced out) on how the Low Volume Vehicle Certification system needed to improve.

The NZTA conducted major changes to the LVV system since that time, as a result of complaints, and further investigation is likely under the current overhaul of the NZTA regulatory functions.

It can be seen on the Incorporated Societies web site how much this is costing the LVVTA. More costs are yet to show from the Court of Appeal, and from this forthcoming case, if it goes ahead. All of this will be paid for by anyone needing a LVV Certification.

Not sure exactly what the LVVTA hopes to gain from proving Defamation against me (even if they succeed).

We have made an offer to LVVTA to end this now- and no response

We have had the first pre-trial conference with Palmer J- its all going well- so look forward to yet another win. (I really must find another retirement hobby)

Denial of Service attacks

We advise readers and contributors to this site that we are experiencing DENIAL OF SERVICE attacks, which overload the server so that the site cannot be reached. We have increased bandwidth twice, and are developing contingency plans if this continues.
We have not yet identified the source of these attacks.
Apologies to all- please email us at john@lowvolumevehicle.co.nz if you find you cannot get through.

Court of Appeal Hearing

CA725/2017 Low Volume Vehicle Technical Association v John Bernard Brett and Anor

This is to confirm that a fixture date has been allotted for the hearing of this appeal at 10.00 a.m. on Thursday 20th September 2018
One day has been allotted for the hearing. This will be at the Court of Appeal, Wellington. Three Judges will hear this appeal.

LVVTA appealed the Judgement of Palmer J that Mr Brett is NOT guilty of defamation of the LVVTA

Mr Brett cross-appealed the Judgement of Palmer J that he IS guilty of defamation of Mr Johnson.
Mr Brett is represented by Mr Peter McKnight

No new evidence is normally permitted in Appeal Court hearings.

The Court is open to all observers.

NEWS 26th March 2019 Decision now released. The Plaintiffs (The LVVTA) have been directed back to the High Court for a second attempt to prove their case. Judgement Decision

Defamation Trial.

CIV-2015-404-001925 Mr AP Johnson and Low Volume Vehicle Technical Association vs John Brett

Auckland High Court

I self represented as a Lay Litigant

The trial occurred on Monday and Tuesday this week.

I claimed that I did not recognize the LVVTA as a legitimate party to the proceedings. My witness, Mr Robert Berger was unavailable, being in Intensive care in hospital in Australia, so his Affidavit was taken as read.

20th November 2017 Judgement now delivered- criticism of the LVVTA is protected by Qualified Privilege under the Bill of Rights. Criticism of Mr Johnson is NOT protected, as he is seen as a volunteer simply acting on the instruction of the LVVTA, and I am therefore liable for defamation of Mr Johnson

John Brett

Full Judgement here: CIV2015-404-1925 20-11-17 JUDG

Freedom of the Press

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.

“Press freedom is one of the most important freedoms in a civilised society. It allows us to discover things about the world, including things the powers-that-be would prefer to keep hidden, and it allows us to give our own take on the world, too. It’s the freedom that lets us see what’s going on, and to say our piece about it. It’s the building block of democracy, and of liberty. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: ‘Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press.’ ”

Extract from Editorial by BRENDAN O’NEILL
EDITOR, SPIKED.

NZ Legislation- Bill of Rights

Imported Modified Vehicles

In an email received from NZTA is this content:

“Good afternoon,

In September we invited you to comment on a proposed change to the process for imported modified vehicles, which would allow these vehicles to be excluded from LVV certification in New Zealand if they’ve already met appropriate overseas standards.

Please find attached a document which provides a summary of the key feedback received and our response to that feedback, and an update on what’s happening next.

We also invited comment on a second proposal that would provide an alternative way for approved commercial modifiers to achieve LVV certification for series production-based vehicle modifications. We’re in the process of collating and responding to the feedback we received on that topic, in parallel with running a pilot of the proposed process, and will provide an update on that activity within the next few weeks.
You’ve received this email because you previously indicated that you wanted to be kept informed of progress on the LVV Review, and/or because you made a submission on a discussion document relating to the processes mentioned above. Please let us know by return email if you’d like to be removed from this mailing list: lvreview@nzta.govt.nz
NZ Transport Agency
National Office / Victoria Arcade, 50 Victoria Street,
Private Bag 6995, Wellington 6141, New Zealand

Here is a link to the PDF containing the full details
imported_modified_vehicles_-_update_to_submitters

Here’s one of the first examples of imported modified vehicles (built in France, Certified to E standards) which should be arriving in NZ very soon.

French Built U-Drive Skoda Yeti mobility vehicle, Certified to E

French Built U-Drive Skoda Yeti mobility vehicle, Certified to E

Low Volume Vehicle Certification review- update from NZTA 31 August 2015

In an email received from the LVReview@nzta.govt.nz is this content:

In our last email update, we told you about a number of changes we were working on to improve the Low Volume Vehicle (LVV) system. Those changes have now been completed and further information about them follows. This update also contains information about work underway to provide alternative pathways to LVV certification for lower-risk modifications. Please find following some questions and answers – we’ve also added these to our website so the latest information is available to everyone.

We’ll contact you soon with further updates about the review. We’ll only contact you when we have something new to say, and anticipate this won’t be for a few weeks.

What has happened since the last update?

Since we last updated you in May 2016, we have finalised the following actions:

Improving certifier consistency:
• The Low Volume Vehicle Technical Association (LVVTA) has completed an update of all standards so there is a single, up-to-date source of information for both certifiers and modifiers. As a result, certifiers will need to rely less on instructions issued via LVVTA information sheets, and customers will find it easier to locate information on requirements and will experience more consistent interpretation and application of standards by certifiers. The latest versions of all standards are available in the Documents section of the LVVTA’s website.
• Although there will always be a level of interpretation and individual decision-making exercised by certifiers, it’s important that certifiers can see where their decision-making may be out of step with other certifiers. To achieve this, the LVVTA has established a certifier Community of Practice, and the first meeting was held in Auckland on 26 June. The next meeting is planned for 13 September, and future meetings will occur around every two months.
• We have ensured there will be an increased focus on consistency in the LVVTA’s certifier training – using the results of form set audits and common queries to identify individual and group training needs – and more opportunities within the training for certifiers to share with and learn from others, through case studies and group discussion of challenging cases.
• The LVVTA has formalised a new requirement for LVV certifiers to ‘co-certify’ (with another certifier) at least one vehicle per year, by adding this to the Operating Requirements Schedule (ORS).
• We have increased the frequency of auditing of certifiers carried out by our Certification Officers, to further ensure high standards are being maintained.
• The LVVTA is continuing to research options and approaches for making the Hobby Car Technical Manual available online. We expect the manual to be published online by the end of October 2016, and it will be renamed. (Comment- About time- ‘Hobby Car Manual’ was completely inappropriate)

Tailoring certification processes to risk

Together with the LVVTA, we consulted with certifiers and modifiers on short-term options for tailoring LVV certification to risk. As a result of the feedback we received, the LVVTA has:
• changed the certification process so that low-risk (‘below threshold’) modifications are excluded from LVV certification when more significant modifications are being certified
• increased the range of modifications that can be certified by different categories of LVV certifiers, which has increased the number of potential certifiers available for most types of certification, and
• excluded brake-testing from certain LVV certifications where it is not relevant to the modifications that have been made.
The result of these changes is that the time and complexity of some certifications will be reduced, as fewer items will need to be tested, and customers will find it easier to find a certifier for their vehicle.
The LVV Code and ORS have been updated to reflect the changes above, and LVV certifiers are currently receiving training on all these aspects.

Reviewing roles, functions and performance metrics
We’ve completed a review of the roles and functions of the various parties to the LVV system, and strengthened these where necessary to support good performance of the system. Some of the changes made include:
• formalising and documenting the LVVTA process for regularly updating the LVV Standards and Code
• reinstating regular formal meetings of the LVVTA-Transport Agency Policy Working Group
• confirming and clarifying the LVVTA’s processes for reporting on certifier performance, and
• formalising the Transport Agency’s annual auditing and review of LVVTA.

What work is happening now?
We’re currently working on further ways to tailor certification to risk, and are working with the LVVTA and industry to develop streamlining options. Our work focuses on vehicles that are currently required to undergo LVV certification, but are lower risk because:
• they’ve been produced in a commercial, production-based setting with quality controls in place, or
• they’ve already met appropriate standards overseas.
The options we’re working on are:
• creating a commercial sub-committee of the LVVTA’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to enable quicker decision-making on approvals for innovative commercial designs
• allowing some modified vehicles imported from other countries to be exempted from LVV certification in New Zealand, if they’ve already met appropriate standards overseas, and
• providing an alternative way for commercial modifiers to achieve LVV certification for production-based vehicle modifications (sometimes referred to as ‘type certification’).
Once implemented, these changes will streamline certification processes and make it quicker and easier to get lower-risk modifications certified, creating benefits for commercial modifiers and importers of modified vehicles. We will consult key parties on the detailed changes in early September, and use their feedback to help refine the new processes. This consultation will include inviting members of this distribution list to provide their views, so you will receive more detailed information about the proposed changes soon. We expect the first of these new processes to be implemented in October and will gradually roll out further changes as they’re developed.

Why weren’t more tailored certification options rolled out sooner?
The options we’re considering represent more significant change to the LVV system than the short-term tailoring options that have already been implemented. They require us to consult and work closely with the LVVTA, LVV certifiers, and industry members to ensure they are implemented effectively. The LVV system is complex, both in terms of the way the sector is regulated and the legislation that supports it. We want to make sustainable changes, so taking a collaborative, considered approach is critical.

What’s happening next?
Through October, we’ll continue to work towards implementing further options for tailored certification described above. Once the changes have been implemented we’ll take stock of the improvements made, and consider whether any further changes are required to improve the functioning of the LVV system.

NZTA webpage

Low volume vehicle certification review (phase 2)

From NZTA:
This is to let you know we have updated our website with a new Questions and Answers document to provide an overview of work since we last communicated with you, and work currently under way.

Since we last updated you in December 2015, we have finalised our actions around:
• Increasing Transport Agency oversight of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and
• Increasing user awareness of the TAC process as the pathway for innovative new approaches or materials and for specialist enquiries.
We have also made significant progress on the actions relating to:
• Working with the LVVTA and certifiers to ensure users experience consistent interpretation and application of standards.
• Developing and implementing tailored certification processes that reflect the risks associated with different types of modifications and the contexts of different sector groups.
• Reviewing and clarifying the roles, functions and performance metrics of the LVVTA, LVV certifiers and the Transport Agency in respect of the LVV system.
Included in the updated Q&As document is the following:
• Links to flow charts to step users through the LVV system, and case studies on our website profiling recent approvals for variation from technical requirements to show the sorts of modifications and variations that the LVVTA’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) deals with.
• An update on various initiatives to improve the consistency of certification decisions. This work was in response to concerns raised in the survey we conducted last year. LVVTA has already introduced changes to increase certifier consistency, and the additional changes planned or underway should see this improve further. We have already received feedback from industry that consistency has been improving.
• An update on our work to investigate tailored certification processes that reflect the risks associated with different types of modifications and the circumstances of different sector groups.
We’ll contact you soon with a further update about the review. We’ll only contact you when we have something new to say, and anticipate this won’t be for a few weeks.

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/low-volume-vehicle-certification-review/low-volume-vehicle-certification-review-phase-2/

Low-volume-vehicle-certification-review-QAs-phase-2-update-201605(2)

Low volume vehicle certification review (phase 1)

From the NZTA website:

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/low-volume-vehicle-certification-review
Low volume vehicle certification review (phase 1)

Published: October 2015 | Category: Research & reports | Audience: Motorists

The Low Volume Vehicle (LVV) certification system for scratch-built or modified vehicles is being reviewed to ensure it is still fit for purpose, and to look for ways it could be improved.

As a starting point, we commissioned Standards New Zealand to undertake an independent survey with a wide range of users of the LVV system, to understand their perspectives on which elements of the current system are working well, and those that are not working so well. This report outlines the findings of this consultation. There are also some Q&As that provide further information.

We are analysing the findings, along with other relevant information available to us (such as customer feedback, and correspondence such as Official Information Act requests) to form a picture of potential changes we can make to the system.

As decisions are made about those changes, we will update the information on this website.
Publication details

Author: Standards New Zealand
Published: October 2015
Contact: lvreview@nzta.govt.nz

Browse section/chapter

Low-volume-vehicle-certification-review-QAs(3)

Scoping-report-for-review-of-the-LVV-certification-system(1)

Web: www.standards.co.nz | Email: enquiries@standards.co.nz | Phone: +64 4 498 5990