Stuart Charity

THE federal government has been accused of whitewashing an outcome to the contentious issue of sharing of service and repair information that has been simmering for years between independent repairers and OEMs.

The Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce (VACC) said it was “deeply disappointed” in the government’s consultation paper that was supposed to pave the way for a mandatory scheme for the sharing of information.

The Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association (AAAA) agrees and said the consultation paper released this week means nothing will change for consumers.

VACC CEO Geoff Gwilym told GoAutoNews Premium that the paper “fails to provide proper definitions and is no step forward since 2014”.

“They’ve backed down,” he said of the government’s stance.

“In 2014, we had a voluntary code that has proven to be a dismal failure. We had a thorough consultation done by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), and yet we are now no step further in resolving this issue.

“We are standing before a federal election and the opposition said it will mandate a code. The problem is that this is exactly what the current government has been promising for years.

Geoff Gwilym

“The government has been given the ACCC’s review, the VACC has submitted ours, and there’s codes around the world – the UK, North America and Europe – that we can draw from to create a workable code for all Australians. But nothing has been done.”

Mr Gwilym said that the latest paper “only asks questions”.

“The industry has been over these questions over and over again for years,” he said.

“It is clear that the government has not put a draft code on the table but rather has gone back to consultations that have already taken place four or five years ago that resulted in the voluntary code which failed.”

Asked if meetings with ministers on both sides of government had indicated a reluctance to make a decision, Mr Gwilym said “no”.

“In our discussions, I have never had a minister on either side of government say that a code was a bad idea,” he said.

“Every member thinks it is a good idea and it’s fair and equitable and they want to see it done. And yet that is not evident in the government today.

“Why? I’ve no idea. The government was happy to see manufacturers leave our shores but are now very nervous about providing a code along the same lines as what is being practised around the world.

“The government seems to be completely oblivious to this even though this information has been given to them.

“It seems that we are asking Dorothy Dix questions about the blindingly obvious, rather than getting on with a proper code that can be used by dealers and independent repairers and consumers.”

While the AAAA welcomed the paper, it also questioned why the ACCC findings were not taken into full account.

In 2017, the ACCC recommended the sharing of vehicle data between OEMs and the national independent repairers should be mandated following its comprehensive industry study.

Meanwhile, AAAA CEO Stuart Charity said he was concerned that the government had not fully recognised the ACCC recommendations and chosen instead to produce a consultation paper that does not benefit consumers.

“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,” he said.

Mr Charity said that although safeguards should be in place to protect the security and integrity of vehicle data, he believes vehicle security “should not be used as an excuse by car companies to withhold critical information required to complete a vehicle repair or service”.

“Car companies should not be able to decide who receives information based on their own definitions relating to safety, security and emissions,” he said.

“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.

“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.”

Other AAAA concerns include:

• The consultation paper refers to vehicle manufacturers potentially being able to determine the appropriate level of investment by independent workshops in order to receive access to service and repair data. It is the firm belief of the AAAA that this will provide vehicle manufacturers with the ability to charge exorbitant fees for information, special tools, training and equipment and is completely unworkable in a market which has 74 different car brands on sale. All this will achieve is higher servicing and repair costs for Australian consumers, defeating the entire purpose of establishing a mandatory code.
• The AAAA would also like to see a greater acknowledgement of the important role of third-party data aggregators in the Australian market. With 74 vehicle brands on Australia’s roads, combined with the need for consumers to be able to access convenient and affordable servicing and repairs wherever they live and for whatever brand of car they drive, the majority of repairers use data aggregators to access servicing information. It is commercially unrealistic for an all-makes-all-model repairer to subscribe to every individual car brand’s data service.
• Car companies appear to be exempt from any penalties “while they transition from their current anti-competitive behaviour in their own time.” There is no point in establishing a mandatory code that does not include sanctions for non-compliance once that phase-in period has ended.

By Neil Dowling