AAAA and FCAI showdown

Aftermarket association demands government enact legislation to compel vehicle data sharing

There's a storm brewing between the car industry's peak body, the FCAI, and the association that represents the aftermarket industry, the AAAA.

In fact, the storm is already upon us, with the AAAA (Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association) previously taking to task member companies of the FCAI (Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries) for conduct that the association claims to be bordering on unethical and 'anti-competitive'.

The earlier salvo fired by the AAAA concerned the reluctance of car companies to re-word their vehicle service manuals – the logbook supplied with your new car, residing in the glovebox – to allow for aftermarket repairers to service vehicles. According to the AAAA on that occasion, and with the approval of the ACCC, logbooks that include terms such as 'factory authorised' or 'dealer authorised' are misleading vehicle owners in the belief that an aftermarket repairer servicing their vehicles could void the warranty.

The latest round in this battle revolves around vehicle data sharing – comprising information about factory settings, vehicle consumables, special tools and all the other black magic esoterica closely guarded in (factory-appointed) dealer workshops. Independent repairers have not been receiving the information necessary to service cars correctly, the AAAA asserts, and have thus put themselves at risk of being liable for damaging a client's car (or voiding the warranty). In theory this could be a question of filling the sump with the wrong oil, fitting incorrect brake pads or using the wrong paint to repair panel damage.

The FCAI, with the agreement of the government, has established a voluntary code of conduct, but the AAAA is not appeased by this. Instead, it insists, the government must bring the FCAI and its members to heel by means of regulation. In a press release issued yesterday, the AAAA took a swipe at the FCAI, declaring the 18 months spent negotiating an equitable Code of Practice to be nothing more than "a wasted opportunity".

That was due to what the AAAA claims was the FCAI's unilateral decision to absolve itself from further negotiations, opting to set up its own voluntary code. The FCAI counters that argument with its assertion the code met with the approval of the AADA, the Australian Automotive Dealer Association.

"After many months of negotiations and with no prior notice, the FCAI released its own document titled 'Voluntary Code of Practice – Access to Service and Repair Information for Motor Vehicles'. This is virtually the same 'code' that was categorically rejected by all other stakeholders when it was tabled by the FCAI at a negotiating meeting in February this year" said AAAA Executive Director Stuart Charity.

"Indeed, the FCAI was strongly counselled not to release its unilateral document while negotiations for the voluntary industry code were progressing. The FCAI has treated this advice with disdain. They continue to ignore the demonstrable need for a code of conduct to protect car owners' fundamental right to choose their preferred repairer," Charity was quoted saying in the press release.

The AAAA argues that a properly negotiated code of practice has support on both sides of parliament, and the incumbent minister for small business, Bruce Billson, wants recommendations tabled by the Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council (CCAAC) late in 2012 to be fully implemented. Without that, the minister has indicated, the government may need to step in.

"Minister Billson recognised that, as vehicles become more technologically advanced, the need for a code of conduct covering service and repair data sharing becomes more urgent," Charity continued.

"The sharing of vital vehicle repair and service data is critical to vehicle safety, minimising emissions and providing choice, convenience and competitive pricing for Australia's 14 million car owners. The FCAI document lacks substance, has a biased dispute resolution process and the extensive list of exemptions mean it will have no impact on the availability of repair information.

"It is naive to suggest that the same companies that have monopolistic control over vehicle data – and a vested interest in maintaining the status quo – can be trusted to 'self-regulate'," he said.

Problems similar to this have already reached resolution in the European Union and the USA, Charity says. The car companies negotiating an equitable settlement in those markets are, by and large, the same companies selling cars in Australia.

"We are meeting with Minister Billson on 28 October and will call on him to immediately set the wheels in motion to implement a Mandatory Code of Conduct to ensure competition and choice for Australian car owners now and into the future," Charity concluded.

In response, the FCAI intimates that the AAAA has not been pro-actively searching for a resolution. The FCAI issued a press release within 24 hours (ie: today) of the AAAA's, stating that the CCAAC's report "had found that there does not appear to be any evidence of systemic consumer detriment regarding the sharing of service and repair information in the automotive industry."

With backing from the Australian Automotive Dealer Association (AADA) representing dealers, the FCAI had released its voluntary code as "part of its commitment to the Government and consumers to act on this issue".

"While developing our respective codes, the FCAI and AADA have continued to work with other relevant industry associations to develop an overarching principles agreement for this matter, which we are still committed to finalising. We understood that the AAA, AAAA and AMIF were consolidating all comments, including FCAI and AADA comments, on the proposed wording for the industry Agreement, which will be signed by the FCAI, AAAA, AADA, AMIF and AAA," FCAI Chief Executive Tony Weber was quoted saying. The AMIF is the Australian Motor Industry Federation and the AAA is the Australian Automobile Association.

"In addition to the Agreement, it is anticipated that each party will release their own Code to display their commitment to ensuring that consumer interests are foremost in this matter. We are eager to see the drafts of these documents.

"Our commitment to this process and to consumers still stands, and was openly demonstrated by the release of our Code. We encourage the other industry associations to follow the FCAI lead in a timely manner, as it is now 23 months since the release of the 2012 Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council review and we question why there is a delay from other industry associations."

The FCAI argues that it had committed to publishing its Voluntary Code of Practice prior to the end of August this year, and in so doing, it informed all stakeholders in advance, including the AAAA.

"Given that it is in the hands of the other Associations to respond to the FCAI wording for the Agreement, we are understandably perplexed that AAAA appears to be abandoning the process," Weber said.

"The AADA will meet in November to ratify our Code," AADA Chairman Ian Field was also quoted as saying.

"The AADA, like the FCAI, clearly understood that consolidation of comments on the latest planned industry agreement was in the hands of industry associations other than FCAI. We are also quite disappointed that the AAAA seems to have walked away from the process, which up until then had been leading to greater understanding across all industry associations of the technical matters involved."

Victoria's VACC has offered independent repairers throughout Australia access to its repair information library, for a nominal fee, according to Field, who also observed that the VACC's call centre currently addresses 98 per cent of technical enquiries.

"It's therefore difficult to understand what repair information AAAA wants, which is not readily available at a small cost, or provided as part of being a VACC member," Field concluded.

AAAA and FCAI showdown

Tags