This is planned to be the first in a series of posts on the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority's (RTA's) proposed Vehicle Safety & Compliance Certification Scheme (VSCCS), which is intended to replace the existing Engineering Certification Scheme (ECS), which has been operating without significant alteration since 1994.
There are 2 separate sets of rules when it comes to modifying vehicles. One is the vehicle construction standards including Australian Design Rules and codes of practice for modifications. The other set of rules are the operating rules for how vehicle certifications are issued. VSCCS and ECS relate to those operating rules, not to the construction standards. The RTA is presently proposing to make changes to the construction standards as well, and if I write about them, I will do so in separate posts to avoid mixing the two.
There are many people within the vehicle industry in NSW who are very concerned about the proposed scheme, and the goal of these blog posts is to summarise some of the concerns that have been raised and explain why it is important that the regulatory changes for the implementation of this scheme not be rushed through and approved by the state government prior to the NSW state election in March.
It is my hope that, by setting out the concerns that I am aware of regarding the scheme, stakeholders, RTA staff, politicians and the general public will be more informed about those issues. I welcome feedback from all sources.
Establishing the need for a new scheme
In any business, whether private or public, there is always a process to be followed in determining whether an existing business practice needs to be fine tuned, substantially altered or completely replaced, and that process must inevitably precede any of those activities.
The RTA has decided that the ECS is to be replaced with the VSCCS.
Clearly, if the existing scheme is working effectively, there is no reason to replace it and hence no reason for any expenditure on developing a new scheme. If the existing scheme has small problems but is generally functioning well as most participants appear to believe, there is clear justification for developing amendments to resolve those problems, at a far smaller cost than developing a new scheme.
To date, no information has been made public as to what the identified deficiencies of the ECS are, or why they cannot be resolved by minor changes to that existing scheme. In the absence of public information, people outside the RTA are asking whether any such process was ever undertaken. The official RTA response to date is that The ECS has been around since the 1970s and it's time to replace it. Taking this statement at face value, it would appear that there is no justification for the by now quite significant expenditure of taxpayers' money on the VSCCS and possible earlier proposed schemes.
While I am not personally familiar with the history of the ECS prior to 1994, I do know that the list of signatories was re-started in 1994, with all existing signatories at that time having to apply to join the new list, but not requiring re-assessment of qualifications and experience. Whether there was a substantive change to the underlying scheme, I do now know. When I applied to join the ECS in August 1998, I was told that the ECS was to be replaced with a new scheme and new people were not going to be accepted into the existing scheme. In December 1998, I was advised that due to delays in the implementation of the new scheme, I was going to be allowed to join the existing scheme at that time.
The current NSW state Labor government took power in 1995, the year after the existing scheme began to operate in its present form, and based on the above information, I believe that work on some form of new scheme proposal has been ongoing since at least 1998, which is almost the entire life of the present government.
Hence, there are a few questions in regards to establishing the need for the proposed VSCCS scheme, which I believe need to be answered by the NSW Minister for Roads, The Hon. David Borger, MP:
- Was due process followed in determining that a new scheme needed to be developed to replace the Engineering Certification Scheme rather than making minor changes to that existing scheme, and if so, will the minister release documentary evidence of this?
- What major deficiencies were identified in the existing Engineering Certification Scheme to necessitate the development of a new replacement scheme rather than making minor changes to the existing scheme?
- Have there been stillborn attempts to develop a new scheme, or is the VSCCS the result of work dating from 1998 or earlier?
- What is the total expenditure on the proposed scheme or schemes intended to replace the Engineering Certification Scheme since at least 1998?
- Will the minister make a commitment to the hundreds of thousands (or more) affected NSW voters that the enabling regulatory changes for the implementation of the VSCCS will not be approved by the government prior to the state election in March?
10 comments:
I Understand about what you say about government bodies doing whatever they like, and wasting tax payers money on useless reforms, could you possibly enlighten us, as to what changing to a VSCCS system would involve, and how they would affect current modified or engineered vehicles, will all modified cars need to be re-examined? Will it be harder to modify a car once the changes take place? Etc. i would really like to know.
regards Jim
Hi Jim.
I intend to post several more blog posts on various aspects of the impacts of the proposal over the next week or two. There are some good things about the proposed scheme, but there are problems that I'm concerned could cause it to collapse entirely.
Vehicles already engineered will not need to be re-done unless they change, or the RTA examines the vehicle and finds deficiencies in the previous certification(s).
If the changes take place, there may be few if any engineers available to certify modifications. I conservatively estimate that 80% of existing engineers will not join the new scheme if it is introduced in its proposed form. Those who remain may be in such demand that they might close their books, providing service only to a limited list of regular clients (companies).
Sounds like a Freedom of Information request might be in order to establish the decision making process and rationale behind this scheme.
For sure Marco, the questions Athol raised in the original post are valid ones that we would all like to see publicly answered under FOI but the end Feb timeframe for public comment is a fait accompli. (An accomplished fact; an action which is completed before those affected by it are in a position to query or reverse it).
However, seeing as many RTA decisions are very much so politically driven, with the State election looming I can’t see the Minister investing time and resources to win the votes of the minority this late leading up to the State election. However, the abolishment of the existing State Govt might have its merits... it could really throw a spanner in the works here and kill this proposed scheme dead in its tracks by refusing to fund such a scheme once it has established power.
The SS Labor Govt Titanic is already up to its neck in water in a slowly sinking ship. Many are hypothesising that we could find ourselves with an alternate State Govt by the end of this year that will bring about major changes to the existing NSW Govt structure. This would almost certainly guarantee cutbacks, sale of or abolishment of many current RTA functions to the Private Sector or transferred to another Govt Agency. Like rats jumping from a sinking ship it is already happening now. A few RTA functions have already been streamlined, sold to the Private Sector or transferred over to the new Transport NSW agency. Further changes are imminent prior to election.
At this point in time I would be very surprised if any decisions regarding a change to the proposed VSCCS are made at all, pending the outcome of the State election of course and what resources and funding would be continued to be allocated to it. On the other hand, unlikely but not entirely improbable, the VSCSS might rear its ugly head and be announced during the state election as an ace up the sleeve to win votes as a new ‘anti-hoon law’ of some kind. If this happens we’ll hear promises of “make it difficult to modify”, “illegal modifications”, “insurances ”, “infringements and penalties” and “make our streets safer”. At face value the general public could be swayed in favour of such propaganda to win votes. Let’s face it; the VSCCS is already documented on the RTA’s website as “Will be introduced in 2011”. So if we really wanted to stop its introduction what can we do? Vote in a new State Govt and hope the next Minister puts an end to its proposal?
Anyhow, politics aside, although very important to our cause, we can only hope that if/when the VSCCS is introduced that there will be engineers/certifiers willing to work under its conditions. With so many signatories working the last few years of their dedicated careers at the moment, I for one wouldn’t blame them if they downed their tools and surrendered their licenses as early as immediately after the induction course into the new scheme. These changes will also affect the supply and demand for certifiers as it is envisaged that fewer individuals would go down the path of anything other than owner-certified modifications or those under Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Certification of Vehicles) Regulation 2011, Part 5B Certification of Vehicles, section 76AL item (ii) “Meaning of Significantly Modified Vehicle”.
Apologies for writing so much, I’m very passionate about the cause and the proposed implications on a number of levels too much to write about.
Here is a concern that we all should provide feedback on.
Modifications to registered vehicles.
Clause 55A 2
(b) for the period of 3 years following the modification, keep any records made or obtained by the person in relation to the modification, including but not limited to the following:
(i) receipts or other proof of purchase of parts or accessories used in the modification of the vehicle,
(ii) records of test methods, and the results of tests, used to determine whether the modified vehicle complies with any applicable vehicle standards, and
(c) produce any such record for a modification made in the preceding 3 years for inspection by the Authority or an authorised person when required so to do by the Authority or an authorised person.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
This clause is plainly ridiculous and much too stringent. How can such a request even have been contemplated for inclusion into the VSCCS let alone be imposed without clarification as why this is a requirement? Does the RTA realise that a modified vehicle may have dozens of modifications both minor and major? How would one actually fulfill all the requirements of parts i), ii) and iii)? .
There should be a more realistic approach to this clause and some clarification as to what it is trying to accomplish so that we know what kind of modifications they want to be addressed?
Why would they want a receipt for tyres for example? A fibreglass front bar? An aftermarket radiator? Aftermarket exhaust system? The list goes on. We’d all need to have an Accountant degree and book-keeping certificates to keep track of each modification and record the information that clause 55A 2b is trying to impose.
This one definitely needs to be addressed and reworded! Perhaps the clause should read ‘major’ modifications to safety components only? Ie chassis, suspension, steering and braking components and not be left as it is written which inadvertently encompasses ‘all’ modifications.
The clause is a trap.
Is its intention to to be an easy money spinner? Or is its intention to identify who modified the vehicle, what part was used, when it was purchased and fitted, and whom to lay the blame onto after the event of an accident and fingers need to be pointed at someone?.
What happens to a vehicle already modified at this point in time without proof of the above and is going for certification after the VSCCS is introduced? How can they obtain proof after the fact or after purchasing a modified vehicle in any state of modification minor or major?
I don’t like this dictatorial clause at all. It is very unrealistic and unreasonable. If it were to remain worded as is without amendment it would create serious public and industry backlash if enforced.
Clause 76AO
'The proposed system states that when requested by the RTA, the certifier will need to make available to produce the documentation that substantiates their decision to certify the modifications of the vehicle'. It does not state what happens in the meantime between where the authorities recognise, in their opinion, that a modification contradicts the VSCCS & when investigation of the certifier takes place?
Is the vehicle owner held liable in the meantime and defected? or will a decision pend on investigation? The reason for non complaince could be one of 3 things... a falsely identified item by the authorities; a transgression or oversight of the certifier; or an illegal modification made by the owner after certification.
Will certified vehicles still be 'defected' under the new scheme? What rights are there for the owner/certifier to appeal for a second opinion before having to take the matter to court and fight an expensive battle with a govt funded powerhouse?
In my opinion, the certificate issued by the certifier SHOULD state the relevant ADR’s in which the modification had been assessed. This would be the certifier's immediate 'alibi’ for Inspectors and Police to cast their eyes over before making any rash decisions whether the modification meets a particular ADR or not.
It will not be difficult for the authorities to cross-reference an ADR onsite considering the guide states that Inspectors and Police will possess electronic access to certificates and other data now.
This will ensure that at least some investigation has taken place on site at the time of inspection before taking the matter further and inconveniencing everybody because an unsubstantiated allegation was made at the time of roadside inspection, without consulting the TRUE reasoning behind why the modification was approved in the first place.
_______________________________
Clause 76AN - Requirement to affix a certification plate
Is there really a 'need' for a complaince plate? The Guide states at Clause 76AN that a compliance plate must be fitted under the new scheme. It is contradicted by further stating that the plate will not be accepted by the RTA as evidence that a compliance certificate has been obtained. If this is the case, why have a plate installed in the first place?
Reading further, it states that the certification plate is there for the purposes of being ‘identified by roadside inspectors (including Police)’ who would have electronic access to the certificates anyway. Again, why fit one at all if it is available electronically at the time of roadside inspection?
How does this affect existing certified vehicles under the ECS that possess certificates, but no plate fitted? Will pre 2011 VSCCS vehicles be treated fairly by authorities if they do not possess a plate affixed to the vehicle? Will they be unfairly treated and issued with an infringement for not fully complying with the new VSCCS requirements once it has been introduced?
Further clarification and 'EXPLANATION' is required before introducing the new scheme. Enforcers will have to be educated 'WELL' so as not to prejudice against pre-existing ECS vehicles without certification plates fitted.
Clause 76AR (2) - Vehicles being driven to certification and associated places
This used to be one of the fairest allowances the RTA provided us with for a long time. It proved to us that they at least understood some of the torment that modified vehicle owners had if they had to transport their fully functional (and roadworthy) vehicle around by tow truck or float for the purposes of getting work done for compliance and registration purposes.
The old system let you drive your vehicle to and from said facilities as long as the vehicle was in a good sate of roadworthiness and you possessed a Letter of Intent as your alibi for travelling to a specific location, during a specific time frame via the most direct route possible for the purposes of inspection or registration only. An appointment at the facility was recommended as proof also.
Under the new VSCCS system, you are only allowed to drive the vehicle to the place for inspection or certification purposes only, and if it is not 'passed' the vehicle cannot be driven back from whence it came.
I am not 100% why there is a 'need' to change the rules from the existing one. Perhaps it comes down to liability in the event of an accident involving an unroadworthy and uninsured vehicle. However, clarification is required here in my opinion.
I can understand not letting the car back on the road if it posed a safety risk to the occupant and other road users. But I cannot see why a vehicle should not be allowed to return home just because a certifier isnt happy with for example, a vehicle doesnt comply to the ADRs because it has non compliant aftermarket headlights fitted or any number of other items small enough not to pose a safety risk during the trip back home, but reason enough for the certifier not to sign off on the modification.
Lastly, sometimes inspections occur out of business hours, weekends or remote areas where provisions for towing the vehicle back home is expensive, difficult to arrange or nonexistent. I think this clause needs to allow return from the inspection facility is allowed, unless it is deemed unsafe/unroadworthy by the inspector.
rkoac1,
You raise quite a few relevant concerns. I hope that you will be submitting them to the RTA before February 28th.
Apologies for a lack of further detailed response and further posts. I'm not well.
Yes Athol,
I've compiled a response including the above, to submit the RTA prior to deadline. Rob.
Post a Comment