A federal government review of Australian Design Rules is expected to kick off within months as Nissan continues its call for the abandonment of unique requirements that slow the introduction of new models to Australia.
Nissan has been the auto brand most publicly critical of Australia’s unique homologation rules, with new Oceania managing director Andrew Humberstone last week adding his voice to complaints aired by his predecessor Adam Paterson and Nissan chief planning officer for Oceania, Francois Bailly.
“At the moment the process takes about 20 months and if that process was adjusted we’d be able to get cars in here that much [quicker]… less than six [months] potentially. [It] Could be very quick,” Humberstone told media at a preview of the MY24 Nissan Patrol Warrior.
Not emphasised by Humberstone but no doubt equally important is the millions of dollars some car companies say are consumed by meeting unique ADR requirements and gaining local type approval for each model in its range.
Unique ADRs include 34/03 related to Child Restraint Anchorages and Child Restraint Anchor Fittings; ADR 42/05 for General Safety Requirements and ADR 61/03 for Vehicle Marking.
The delayed arrival of the Nissan Ariya mid-size electric SUV in Australia has been the poster child for ADR issues. First launched in mid-2022 overseas, it has been on sale in New Zealand – where there are no unique homologation requirements – since early 2024.
Top-tether issues for both the BYD Atto 3 and Tesla Model 3 are other high-profile examples of globally-certified cars falling foul of ADRs.
What Nissan, some other auto brands and lobby groups such as the MTAA are calling for is direct type approval in Australia of vehicles already homologated overseas via respected international vehicle certification standards such as FMVSS (USA) and UNECE (Europe).
Under direct type approval, the fitment of centre top-tether point would be optional.
“The government has to explain why Australia needs unique standards,” MTAA CEO Matthew Hobbs told carsales.
“It’s not seen anywhere else in the world while New Zealand is happy to take safe vehicles that meet the standards of United States, Germany and France.”
The introduction of the NVES emissions standard from January 2025 is adding urgency to these types of arguments.
“All we are asking for is if you accelerate the legislation can you accelerate the process which allows us to bring the cars,” said Humberstone.
“We are supportive of the change in [emissions] legislation. There is no concern from our product portfolio point of view that we meet the guidelines. The big question is does it have to take 20 months.”
The federal government committed somewhat opaquely to an ADR review in its budget papers in May, noting that a (yet to be appointed) NVES regulator would have the task of undertaking “further work to bring Australian vehicle standards into line with those of our peers”.
carsales understands that the regulator’s work on this issue could be underway within the next three months.
While Nissan argues that unique ADRs are an unneeded hangover from Australia’s auto manufacturing past, there are concerns that wiping them could create issues of their own.
For instance, it could create a surge in imports via the SEVS (Specialist and Enthusiast Vehicles Scheme), which is no longer volume-capped, diverting customers from auto brands and their dealers.
Aligning Australian new-vehicle type approval with international standards could also open up access to the local market for less ethical car brands that might ‘game’ the system.
Nissan argues that type approval based on international regulation should be limited to mass-market OEMs (car manufacturers).
“These products are coming from very high safety and major global markets and significant OEMs. We are talking about the major OEMs.
“We are not talking about some start-up entity that is manufacturing 500 cars.
“We are a global entity in major markets where safety standards are extremely high.”