Comments for consideration in the review of the

Motor Vehicles Standards Act 1989

There seems to be a disconnect between the requirements for mass produced and marketed vehicles and the various concession schemes in operation. The former have standards, in particular the Australian Design Rules (ADRs) that are strictly applied, while the latter ignore many of these standards. The federal Department of Infrastructure and Transport (DIT) seem to spend a disproportionate amount of resources in managing e requirements for vehicles introduced under the concession schemes, and all jurisdictions then, in turn, also spend considerable amount of time dealing with these vehicles when they are presented for registration. The risks posed by vehicles are the same, and they should be subject to the same measuresto control these risk, which are mainly the ADRs are equivalent standards.

The allowances given to imported vehicles for not complying with the ADRs and other standards cause problems when a person comes to register the vehicles. These allowances should be better aligned with the standards that apply to vehicles sourced from the Australian market and registration requirements across the jurisdictions.

Consideration should be given to placing obligations on suppliers of vehicles and components in the Motor Vehicles Standards Act 1989 (Act), and penalties for breaching these obligations. I comparison with workplace health and safety legislation, there are strict provisions on designers, manufacturers and supplier of plant to ensure that the plant, as supplied to the workplace, is safe and fit for purpose when properly used, and this extends to the provision of information that enables the plant be properly used. It seems incongruous that where safety related problems arise, or even simply blatant breaches of standards through supply of non-complying aftermarket components, that recourse must be taken through the ACCC under consumer legislation, rather than the DIT through the Act. Examples that spring readily to mind are motorised wheelchairs/mobility devices that are capable of travelling at significantly more than 10km/h; motorised bicycles with more than 200/250watts power; under-body lights; and turbo blow-off valves that vent to atmosphere.

A clearer demarcation between the Act and jurisdictional responsibilities should be provided; for example how mass produced vehicles sold in kits are treated, and the status of a person who builds bespoke vehicles on behalf of clients.

Consideration should be given to establish provision for vehicles – such as special purpose vehicles – that are necessarily outside the scope of the ADRs.

The term road is frequently used both as an adjective to qualify vehicle and for describing the scope of the Act. However, it is not defined, which can lead to ambiguity. The term road should be defined to remove ambiguity in interpreting the Act.

In adopting UNECEs, the whole UNECE should to be adopted in full, and sections not cherry-picked from them.

The processes for adopting the UNECEs need to be more transparent. Frequently, changes are made in an UNECE that affects the referencing ADR, but this is has not been widely disseminated. Consideration should be given to ensure that key stakeholders are made aware of such changes, preferably in advance so they can provide feedback on the pending change.

The Act allows for vehicles to be granted Identification Plate Approval if they do not comply with the applicable ADRs, providing such non-compliance is deemed to be minor and inconsequential. Items have been deemed “minor and inconsequential” can be interpreted as representing non-compliance with the ADRs, and this can cause problems in enforcing standards for in-service vehicles. There should be a register established, or some other means of identifying, those items of non-compliance that have been determined as minor and inconsequential in issuing Identification Plate Approval.

ADRs are changed at regular intervals; however, the changes are not always obvious. Particular confusion is caused when the ADR designation is not changed, which can happen even with quite substantial changes. This can cause problems in determining which parts of an ADR applies to in-service vehicles. Some way of better identifying when amendments take effect within the same versions and editions of an ADR should be established – eg Rev 1, Rev 2, etc.

There is considerable overlap between the Act and workplace health and safety legislation for some items of plant that can be used on the roads or which travel on the roads, for example, quad-bikes/ATVs, farm equipment and cranes. The Act should ensure that items designated primarily as plant but which can be reasonably expected to be used on roads, are subject to minimum road safety standards – brakes, lights, etc.

Prepared by Dan Leavy

Manager, Safer Vehicles

Centre for Road Safety

Transport for NSW

D:\Temp\Comments.doc