The Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association and the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce are bewildered by the federal government’s consultation paper into the mandatory data sharing code of conduct.
Both industry advocacy stakeholders spoke to AutoTalk on the morning of the paper’s release, saying the fact another consultation is taking place is concerning and disappointing.
VACC chief executive Geoff Gwilym says it’s a sign of a government not listening to small business.
“This is very frustrating, we’ve all spent tens of thousands of man hours, late nights, early starts, weekends away from family, just working on this issue with successive governments on both sides,” he says.
“That we’re still discussing it, another consultation paper, it’s absolutely ridiculous – we’ve basicall
y given them a very good draft code, but what they’ve come out with is a very different one,” Gwilym reveals.
VACC’s Geoff Gwilym says the mandatory code lacks gravitas
The VACC and AAAA are primarily concerned there is no stipulation about penalties for non-compliance with the mandatory sharing conditions of vehicle service/repair information, nor anything clear about how non-franchised mechanics would be trained to use the information safely, correctly according to manufacturer recommendations.
“Along with other state-based Motor Trades Associations, we have all given the government more than enough information to design a code at our own great expense, even bringing US experts to consult face-to-face, but it seems to have all been ignored,” Gwilym explains.
“Instead of providing a timeline to provide training, it just says they won’t be able to access that information without approved qualification – it’s a glib attempt to pacify the industry.
“It lacks definition, it’s vague, and that’s being understated; consumers in Australia are seeking choice in all things – where they buy groceries, where they school their kids, and the 1.1 million new cars the OEMs are apparently happy to sell to consumers – but they won’t provide the data required that allows consumers to choose who services them in or out of warranty,” Gwilym adds.
“This would have been an easy win for automotive industry support in this year’s election.”
Dr Andrew Leigh, the shadow assistant treasurer, and shadow minister for competition and productivity, tells the VACC the Labor government will wholly back the code.
“My thanks are extended to the Victorian Automotive Chamber of Commerce, and members for tirelessly advocating for the implementation of a code to ensure independent mechanics have a level playing field,” he says in a letter shared with AutoTalk.
“Labor’s support for equitable access to vehicle repair information is clear and unambiguous: A Shorten Labor Government will require car manufacturers to share technical information with independent mechanics on commercially fair and reasonable terms, with safeguards that enable environmental, safety and security-related technical information to be shared,” Leigh declares.
Communications director for the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, Lenore Fletcher, says the body “is aware of the consultation paper issued by Treasury”.
“Our members look forward to working closely with Treasury on this topic [and] our focus will be on ensuring the end results provide the most positive outcomes for Australian consumers,” Fletcher says.
“Given the highly sophisticated and technical nature of the modern automobile, the FCAI will bring a strong focus on the safety and wellbeing of automotive staff, technicians and customers to the discussion,” she explains.
The FCAI says its focus will remain on safety which it sees as “particularly relevant considering the new and innovative technology that is now entering the market in the form of pure electric, hybrid and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and the tooling and training that is critical to safely service and repair these vehicles.”
The aftermarket association’s chief executive Stuart Charity says the consultation paper, supposedly meant to draw on recommendations from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, has “come out of nowhere”.
“Whoever has written this paper doesn’t seem to have read the ACCC report; there are no penalties for the mandatory code, the OEMs decide on definitions of ‘safety’, ‘security’ and ‘environment’ conditions for access, and they even want non-genuine parts blocked while they’re at it,” Charity fumes.
“It seems to me there’s a bunch of people in treasury writing a code who clearly have no idea of the issues involved and haven’t done their research.”
“That, or the process has been hijacked by car companies.”
Charity says it begs asking which industry stakeholders have had their arguments prioritised.
“You have to start asking conspiracy questions, because it’s so far off the mark it takes us all the way back to the start, like it’s 2011 again,” he says.
“How would a workshop servicing all makes and models, or even one specialising in European cars, or Japanese-only, or American cars, possibly complete all the requisite training they want to impose?” Charity asks.
“Independent workshops would become quasi-dealerships if that were the case, and the ACCC never said anything about restrictions – safeguards such as authentication, vetting and portal access via subscription model, yes, absolutely they would be essential to a functioning mandatory data-sharing code – but restrictions and closing businesses out of the system is not the point of the code,” he explains further.
The AAAA says with 19.2 million cars registered in Australia, putting the code out in its current form would potentially exploit consumers and gives carmakers the power and discretion to unfairly exclude independent repairers.
“We welcome the steps forward that the government has made in moving towards the establishment of a mandatory code, but when it comes to consumers’ scheduled servicing, maintenance and repair of their vehicles, car companies should not be able to decide who receives information based on their own definitions relating to safety, security and emissions,” Charity explains.
“That should be determined by an independent third party; vehicle security should not be used as an excuse by car companies to withhold critical information,” he highlights.
The AAAA says with over 70 brands and countless models of varying ages and design in Australia’s national fleet, the proposal is “commercially unrealistic”.
“Data aggregators are vitally important to enable our industry to provide consumers with choice and competition for vehicle servicing,” Charity says in favour of an independent data supplier.
Treasury says it is “committed to supporting appropriate commercial dealing and competition in the new car retail supply chain for the benefit of both small businesses and consumers”.
“The purpose of this consultation is to gauge the suitability of possible elements of a mandatory scheme for the sharing of motor vehicle service and repair information and the establishment of a Service and Repair Information Sharing Advisory Committee,” the department says.
The government says it “intends to implement a scheme in 2019”, with another public consultation period for assessing the draft code scheme before becoming legislation.
Stakeholders have until March 11 to submit their consultation input to treasury.
