Aftermarket Association offers guarded support for data sharing code

A new data sharing code has been called into question by the Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association (AAAA), following the release today of a government consultation paper.

In the consultation paper, 'Mandatory scheme for the sharing of motor vehicle service and repair information', the government has acknowledged the findings of the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission), which stated in a report from December 2017 that an earlier voluntary agreement between the car importers and independent workshops was 'ineffective'. The 'Mandatory scheme' places the onus on the car companies to supply the appropriate data to the independent workshops.

But Stuart Charity, the AAAA's Chief Executive Officer, has expressed misgivings that the government hadn't accepted all the findings of the final report into the matter by the ACCC. He was particularly concerned by the consultation paper allowing the car companies some wriggle room to withhold data on the grounds of 'exclusions' and 'restrictions'.

"We welcome the steps forward that the Government has made in moving towards the establishment of a mandatory code under the Competition and Consumer Act (CCA) for the sharing of vehicle data with Australia's independent repairers by releasing this detailed Consultation Paper today," Charity was quoted as saying in an AAAA press release issued today.

"We strongly encourage the Government to take on board the full ACCC findings and recommendations relating to the attributes of a mandatory scheme, as the overriding objective of this scheme is to provide fair and open competition to promote choice and affordability for all Australian car owners.

"We are concerned about the language used throughout the Consultation Paper that relate to 'exclusions' and 'restrictions' that may be included in a mandatory code. Of course there will need to be safeguards in place to protect the security and integrity of vehicle related data, however vehicle security should not be used as an excuse by car companies to withhold critical information required to complete a vehicle repair or service.

"These terms were not used in the ACCC Final Report and if they are included in the final code, we have no doubt that car companies will fully exploit this by linking all required information to either security, safety or emissions and in reality nothing will have changed for consumers."

The dispute between the car companies and independent repairers has dragged on for some eight years, the AAAA says. Its members cannot adequately cater for the needs of retail customers – vehicle owners – if the car companies refuse to hand over the data needed to service or repair the vehicles.

"In order for Australian consumers to be treated fairly when it comes to the 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 explained.

"The ACCC's Final Report recommended that all required technical information ‘be shared with independent repairers on commercially fair and reasonable terms, subject to appropriate safeguards to enable the sharing of environmental, safety and security-related technical information' and we fully support this recommendation."

The AAAA is also concerned that the government's consultation paper makes no specific acknowledgement of the need for data aggregators – publishers providing workshops with information across all makes and models for just one subscription. Without the service provided by data aggregators, the independent workshops would be required to pay for multiple subscriptions to access data from each car company if the workshop wishes to service or repair more than one type of vehicle or one brand's product range.

As an analogy, it would be like subscribing to different newspapers for sport, general news, commentary, fashion, motoring, politics and business.

The VACC (Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce) has also waded into the discussion, issuing its own press release in response to the government's consultation paper.

And Geoff Gwilym, the VACC's CEO, has not held back.

"Frankly, this document is not worth the paper it's printed on," he was quoted as saying in the press release.

"If a ‘mandated code' has no penalties for non-compliance it will not work in the real world.

"VACC has been calling for a mandated code for a long time now. We will not be satisfied until it is a genuine mandated code: this means that there are explicit penalties if manufacturers fail in their obligations to share the information for which they are obliged."

Gwilym even went so far as to suggest that the incumbent government had dropped the ball and consumers would expect an incoming Labor government to adopt all the ACCC's recommendations.

"In the lead-up to the next Federal election Australian motorists – all 15 million of them – will consider this significant consumer issue as they enter polling booths and decide on this country's next Federal Government."