Why Australia needs ANCAP

When the federal government tipped $6.64 million into the Australian New-Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) earlier this year, guaranteeing its future for another five years, there were plenty of people asking why the money was being spent.

Cars are not made in Australia now and everything that is being imported is, or will or should be, crashed tested somewhere else in the world.

It’s not just cash from Canberra, either, as there a total of 23 contributors to the ANCAP budget – including the state auto clubs — and the organisation runs on an annual spend of around $3.5 million.

So, is ANCAP a double-up, an indulgence, or a plain waste of money?

Solid defence

We caught up with ANCAP chief executive James Goodwin in the briefing room of ANCAP headquarters in the Canberra suburb of Barton.

It’s a modern and efficient headquarters, a world away from the violence and chaos of a full-scale crash test.

Speaking quietly but firmly, Goodwin is calm, measured and efficient, and happy to take the tough questions in defence of ANCAP with a defence that’s as effective as anything on a footy field.

“We are good value,” he begins.

“For every dollar they put into ANCAP, either as a taxpayer or a member of a motoring club, they are getting a $20 benefit. We are pretty lean. But we’re a small team with a big impact.

“We commissioned an independent economist to work out the value of ANCAP, modelling two technologies from 2015. That’s head-protection side airbags and electronic stability control,” Goodwin begins.

“They said it saved, with those two technologies in two years, seven lives, 196 serious injuries and more than 1100 property-damage incidents.

“That’s a dollar value of $104 million.”

He quotes more figures from the Department of Infrastructure, which measures the economic benefit of things like roads and bridges. And ANCAP, which it funds.

“They generally want a 1:1 return. We deliver 20:1.”

Those are impressive numbers, but Goodwin sees the value of ANCAP another way.

“We are a disruptor,” he says.

In the early 1990s that meant disrupting a system which relied on car-makers who refused to reveal their in-house safety results, and since then it’s meant driving everything from five-star safety scores and improved technology to embarrassing sub-par car-makers.

“The formation of ANCAP was the biggest thing, rather than a single technology. That highlighted to the industry and consumers that they were getting the best and safest products.

“That’s what ANCAP was doing in 1992 and 1993 and that set us on the path to be able to do the other things.”

Branching out

Those things include everything from ramping-up testing in Australia, helping with the formation of other NCAP groups around the Asian region, and helping car-makers get better results from their home bases.

This time he quotes a couple of examples, where Kia cars for Australia scored differently than left-hand drive vehicles and the Ford Mustang only managed a two-star rating.

“It’s taken time, but at least they are improving the Mustang. It would have been good if we’d got it at the same time as Europe,” Goodwin says.

But what about accusations about double-up testing and the time it takes to ratify Euro NCAP results for Australia?

“We want to make sure that the vehicles being imported are meeting the expectations on safety,” he said.

“We don’t double-up. We want to cover the volume-sellers. Australians tend to buy different vehicles to our European friends.”

Moving on from the current ANCAP scores, Goodwin is working to position the organisation as an umbrella group on road safety.

He hopes it will mean a more general approach to the problems on the road, instead of knee-jerk political and police reactions to road toll numbers.

“We’ve started talking about safer vehicle choices saving lives. You can say you buy a new car, but not everyone can.

“At least be aware of the safety of the vehicle you have. And, for example, let the youngest and least experienced driver have the safest car in the driveway.”

Defending date stamps

Goodwin also wants to lift the discussion about the safest second-hand choices, which is in part why ANCAP scores now have a date stamp to show when vehicles were tested and rated, and therefore the scoring regime they were subjected to.

Requirements for a five-star ANCAP rating have increased over the years to include often-mandated safety equipment like ESC, meaning a five-star car tested in, say, 2001 is unlikely to be five-star safe by current standards.

“We don’t say a five-star car from 10 years ago is unsafe, but it’s unlikely to be compared with a new car. It needs to be compared with cars from a similar time. It needs to be apples and apples. That’s how most people buy.

“The date stamp is the area where we believe we are hopefully going to help people. So you need to be comparing two 15-year-old vehicles and that’s fine.

“The date stamp seems to be the simplest way. But this is quite new. It takes time to get out into the community.”

On a similar front, and despite the tiny number of new cars with low scores, he sees no need to move away from the five-star maximum ANCAP rating.

“In 2016 we surveyed 1300 people. We asked those questions. We’ve looked at 10 stars, 15 stars, negative scores, half-stars.

“It doesn’t make any sense. We have asked the community and they have told us five stars is what they prefer.”

Looking ahead, Goodwin sees plenty of work ahead from testing and assessing upcoming safety developments and then getting the message to consumers.

“Having the technology is good, but it needs to work as well,” he said.

“With these technologies the car buying experience needs to change. A test drive is not just a run around the block. Technology can be life-saving. Even if you’re a good driver, the other person might not be.”

Turning back to the original question about the funding and staffing of ANCAP, Goodwin is not budging.

“We only have a staff of eight people. Three of them are engineers. We want to get the ratings out to help consumers.

“If the manufacturers are offering five-star vehicles then we are doing our job. The chance of a person going into a dealership and buying an unsafe car is very low.

“We do put ourselves out there. That means we are open for criticism. But hopefully we can defend ourselves,” Goodwin says.