The red tape blocking cheaper electric cars in Australia: Mitsubishi joins Nissan in calling for harmonised ADRs to fast track rivals to the Tesla Model Y, BYD Dolphin and MG4 | Analysis – Car News

The Australian Government’s New Vehicle Efficiency Standard will begin to bite from July 1, 2025, and some manufacturers feel legislation has moved faster than Australia’s sluggish type approval process allows.

Nissan called for an Australian Design Rule (ADR) amendment in 2023 as a unique requirement – not needed n Europe or the US – for a top tether anchor point for a child seat in the middle second row has so-far prevented the brand from bringing its Ariya electric car. The Ariya launched globally way back in mid-2022. All other Nissan products on sale in Australia meet this requirement, though.

Some manufacturers are calling for Australia to automatically accept vehicles approved for sale in major markets such as the UK and Japan without having to meet unique Australia Design Rules.

The latest manufacturer to campaign for easier approval is Mitsubishi, which has released a statement exclusively to CarsGuide outlining its position.

Nissan and Mitsubishi’s goals are: to offer Australian new-car buyers a better selection of affordable electrified vehicles and stay in business with as few NVES fines as possible. 

It is not the first time ADRs have come under scrutiny. The third edition was enacted in 1989 and there have been various updates since, including fairly close harmonisation with European standards.

ADRs were important when local light vehicle manufacturing was in full swing as a way of keeping Holden, Ford, Toyota, Mitsubishi and others in check while having the secondary benefit of making things just that little bit more complex for overseas marques.

Mitsubishi Australia notes the lengthy approval process in Australia takes between 18-24 months and major OEMs require approval before mass-production for Australia commences. This process can dramatically slow time-to-market of new vehicles, especially if non-compliance is unearthed. 

Direct acceptance of type approval for Europe, Japan or the United Kingdom “would further accelerate new vehicle adoption in this country, with no impact on safety,” according to Mitsubishi. 

Nissan’s position is very similar (though the pair are not in cahoots locally despite the global Alliance) and would support reform where direct type approval from major markets is accepted. This is mirrored by lobby groups, including the Motor Trades Association of Australia (MTAA). 

Nissan Oceania Managing Director Andrew Humberstone spoke to media about the topic last month. 

“For us, the key thing is the speed of being able to bring cars into the country. At the moment the process takes about 20 months, and if that process was adjusted we’d be able to get cars much sooner.”

To the point that every manufacturer now imports cars, Humberstone replied that the current process does not allow OEMs to change planning directions quickly enough: “We are happy to adapt [to NVES] but can you then allow us access within six months?”

He also denied the NVES scale up is coming too fast “[Nissan is] arguably ready. … All we are asking for is if you can accelerate the legislation, can you accelerate the process which allows us to bring the cars in?”

As for other voices, a Volkswagen Australia spokesperson said “Volkswagen Group Australia has always advocated for alignment with global best practice and it’s encouraging that this process is underway.”

Meanwhile, Mazda Australia Marketing Director Alastair Doak noted the lengthy process but added Mazda hasn’t “ever really had any major struggles to make those changes,” with nothing further to add.

A Hyundai spokesperson also responded, noting there are some ADRs that can slow the process.

The other top-selling manufacturers CarsGuide contacted, including fast-growing new brands from China, declined to comment on the approval process. 

Mazda CX-60 PHEV (Image: Glen Sullivan)

The Federal Chamber of Automobile Industries (FCAI) has advocated for type approval harmonisation. The idea was core to the body’s NVES consultation submission though it did not provide comment for this story. 

“The Road Vehicle Standards Act (RVSA) requires all models to be certified by the Commonwealth, and the process by which that certification approval is facilitated is slow, cumbersome and adds cost, complexity and lead time to the supply of vehicle models to the Australian market,” reads the submission. 

“FCAI continues to advocate for a reduction in the complexity of administrative processes for the certification of models for the Australian market.”

Which Australian Design Rules should be changed?

There are multiple rules that do not align with overseas standards in the areas of lighting, labelling and fuel efficiency however the key points of discussion are ADR 34/03—Child Restraint Anchorages and Child Restraint Anchor fittings; ADR 61/03—Vehicle Marking; and ADR 42/05—General Safety Requirements.

Australia accepted ISOFIX as a suitable child seat fitment system in 2014 (eight years after release). Unlike Europe, Australia mandates the two easy-access clips are complemented by an old-school top tether anchor. This applies to all seating positions in the second row.

It is understood this compliance issue is what’s holding up the Nissan Ariya, an electric car that would compete against the Tesla Model Y in Australia’s most popular medium SUV segment, from arriving locally. 

Kia EV9 with child seat (Image: Glen Sullivan)

The Ariya could be vital as Nissan needs more low-emissions cars to to dodge NVES fines from the high volume of Navaras and Patrols it sells. 

Honda managed to skirt the top tether issue in the HR-V small SUV by complying it as a four-seat vehicle locally. The BYD Atto 3 and facelifted Tesla Model 3 also landed in hot water when examples arrived in Australia without the third tether point forcing stop sales.

As for 61/03, it is an extra step requiring an Australia-unique VIN plate to be attached while 42/05 are general safety standards that could be harmonised. 

Honda HR-V (Image: Glen Sullivan)

ADR 81/02—Fuel Consumption Labelling for Light Vehicles has also come under scrutiny, with Mitsubishi suggesting the sticker label could be replaced with mandatory online registration of economy figures, and NEDC-based results replaced by the more accurate WLTP.

The Hyundai spokesperson told CarsGuide ADR81/02 is an “inconvenience” as “now, most brands have moved to the WLTP cycle, but ADR still requires NEDC. In the past there was a convertor for WLTP to NEDC, but now it has been decommissioned.”

Why changing the rules benefits Australian new-car buyers 

When large corporations call for change to stay in business it is important to check whether their interests are truly in line with consumers. 

After all, new electric car brands from China and legacy carmakers who accounted for more fuel-efficient vehicle demand ahead of the government’s NVES are not asking for amendments.

Safety and compliance standards remain deeply necessary, the question is: does Australia need its own?

BYD Atto 3 (Image: Glen Sullivan)

With no need to amortise the compliance process and any production changes, faster arrival of new vehicles and the ability to provide lower cost options, direct type approval aligned with major markets will help manufacturers navigate NVES – Mitsubishi’s example being the now-ruled-out BYD Dolphin rivalling eK X electric car. 

There are clear benefits for new-car buyers as well: access to a greater range of fuel-efficient and electric vehicles at more affordable prices and increased competition only making it a better environment to buy a safe and efficient vehicle.

When you take into account the bigger picture, it’s hard to see how accepting direct type approval from advanced markets could possibly be a bad thing.