The Australian government has commissioned an independent review of Australian Design Rules (ADRs), following criticism from carmakers they’re too onerous.
It has engaged Dr Warren Mundy to conduct the review, which will look at ways to improve the process of having a vehicle approved for sale in Australia.
ADRs are national regulations vehicles must comply with in order to be sold here, and cover everything from lighting to seatbelts and crash protection.
It isn’t Dr Mundy’s first independent review, having released his findings on the National Legal Assistance Partnership (NLAP) earlier this year. He has also served as both an executive and board member for organisations like Melbourne Airport.
100s of new car deals are available through CarExpert right now. Get the experts on your side and score a great deal. Browse now.
The government is inviting members of the public to have their say on the ADR Harmonisation Review 2024-25 between now and Friday, January 24, 2025.
It notes it’s “not the function of this review to reconsider the content of individual ADRs”.
The review will look at how closely our ADRs align with international standards, and how these can be better aligned.
It will also look at the implications of streamlining the process of ADR harmonisation, as well as the risks and opportunities presented by taking United Nations standards and ‘converting’ them into ADRs.
Additionally, it will look at “factors relevant to determining appropriate ADR implementation timeframes”.
The review will “seek to identify practical changes to current harmonisation practices that that will reduce the regulatory and administrative burden of providing road vehicles to the Australian market and remove any unnecessary productivity barriers, without compromising road safety objectives”.
The government notes that Dr Mundy is particularly interested in feedback from stakeholders about how the process can be improved to reduce cost and the amount of time it takes for a vehicle to be introduced here, and how much ADRs impact productivity and innovation as well as the choice of vehicles in our market.
“Dr Mundy will bring a fresh perspective to regulatory frameworks that have traditionally served not only safety and emissions goals but also protected local manufacturing,” said Motor Trades Association of Australia (MTAA) CEO Matt Hobbs.
“We commend the Government for committing to an independent review of the ADRs which will contribute to a competitive and safe market for all consumers.
“We fully support this review as an opportunity to address outdated regulatory barriers that hinder the adoption of new technologies, especially electric vehicles.
“Aligning Australian standards with international best practices will create a more competitive market and accelerate our nation’s transition to a sustainable future.”
ADRs can often be more stringent than regulations in markets like the UK and US.
For example, the introduction of ADR 85/00 – Pole Side Impact Performance in 2021 saw myriad vehicles discontinued despite being allowed to continue on sale in other major markets.
This included vehicles from Lexus, Mitsubishi, Nissan and Alpine.
Unsurprisingly, two of those brands have been particularly vocal about the ongoing impact of ADRs.
Nissan has blamed the Australian government’s requirement for top-tether child seat anchor points for all second-row seats – ADR 34/02 – as the reason its electric Ariya SUV has taken so long to be released here.
This requirement also led Honda to simply introduce the current HR-V as a four-seater instead of investing in retooling the rear-seat anchor point configuration.
“What I would challenge is that because you are a CBU [completely built unit] market with the government, help us compress this homologation,” said Nissan’s senior vice president of region and chief planning officer Francois Bailly earlier this year.
“If a car is homologated let’s say in Europe, which is a very safe market or us. Can we reduce the time? There’s no value for the customer [to modify cars for Australian Design Rules].
“So can we compress that? That’s what I would debate or challenge.”
Nissan has argued that by aligning our regulations with those of major markets like the UK or Japan, the type approval timeframe could be slashed from 20 months to just six.
Mitsubishi subsequently called on the government to reform its Type Approval and ADR processes “to assist delivery” of vehicles it wants to bring in to meet the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) coming into effect next year.
It argues it can take anywhere from 18-24 months for a vehicle to go through the Australian Type Approval process and be ticked off for sale in our market – not ideal when the new legislation comes into effect on January 1, 2025, with penalties coming into effect from July 1.
Vehicles can’t be shipped until the approval has been issued by the government.
Mitsubishi is calling for all ADRs to be fully harmonised with UN regulations, or for Australia to at least accept equivalent standards in other “advanced markets” such as Japan, the European Union and the UK, which it says would have no impact on vehicle safety.
It blamed local regulations for dooming the eK X electric kei car for our market, arguing it would have been “uneconomic” to introduce it here.
It also says ADR 69/00, which covers full frontal impact occupant protection, could be harmonised with European front collision requirements, and has taken exception to ADR 61/03 (the requirement of an Australia-specific VIN label) and ADR 81/02 (the requirement of a windscreen-mounted fuel consumption label).
MORE: Mitsubishi joins chorus calling to cut red tape around Australian vehicle importsMORE: Australian Design Rules and ANCAP delaying new Nissan modelsMORE: How Nissan wants to make it easier to bring more efficient cars to Australia
https://thewest.com.au/lifestyle/motoring/independent-adr-review-could-cut-red-tape-for-new-car-imports-to-australia-c-16949693
