explanatory Statement

Consumer Protection Notice No. 5 of 2007

Issued by the Authority of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer

Trade Practices Act 1974

Consumer Product Safety Standards – Child Restraint Systems for use in motor vehicles

Subsection 65E(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (the Act) provides that the Minister may, by notice in writing, declare that, in respect of goods of a kind specified in the notice, a particular standard, or a particular part of a standard, prepared or approved by Standards Australia, with additions or variations specified in the notice, is a consumer product safety standard for the purposes of section 65C.

Paragraph 65C(1)(a) of the Act provides that a corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, supply goods that are intended to be used, or are of a kind likely to be used, by a consumer, if the goods are of a kind in respect of which there is a consumer product safety standard and they do not comply with that standard.

This instrument declares the 1995, 2000 and 2004 versions of the Australian Standard for motor vehicle child restraints AS 1754, as varied, to be consumer product safety standards for the purposes of section 65C.  The purpose of these safety standards is to ensure that child restraints supplied on the Australian market have key safety features that reduce the associated risks of injury to/death of a child while travelling in a motor vehicle. 

These Australian Standards specify minimum design, construction and performance requirements for child restraints in order to promote the provision of a high level of protection for children placed in them.  Requirements for informative labelling, instructions, marking and packaging are also specified. 

Based on feedback received in the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) consultation process, components for restraint systems made to the requirements of AS 1754:1975 will no longer be allowed to be supplied under these updated mandatory standards as this requirement is considered outdated and unnecessary, and restraints for disabled children will also be excluded from the coverage of the updated mandatory standards in order to eliminate market confusion - these types of restraints will be addressed by the requirements contained in a separate Australian Standard dealing specifically with restraints for disabled children.

A RIS for these consumer product safety standards is attached to this Explanatory Statement.  The RIS identifies the product safety issues and considers the various options for addressing the issues.  The case is presented for introducing an update of the mandatory safety standard for motor vehicle child restraints and the rationale for the content of the update is explained. 

A draft of the RIS was circulated for consideration by interested parties including manufacturers/suppliers of child restraints, State and Territory fair trading/consumer affairs agencies, consumer groups and child safety specialists.  All parties strongly supported the Commonwealth’s proposal to continue to regulate the supply of this product based on a revision/update of the current mandatory standard.

The declaration of these consumer product safety standards is a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

The declaration commences on the day after it is registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments.

REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY STANDARD

CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS FOR USE IN MOTOR VEHICLES

MARCH 2007

Product Safety Policy Section

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

(ACCC)

INTRODUCTION

The Trade Practices Act (1974) under section 65C provides for the Commonwealth Government to take action, where necessary, to address concerns about consumer product safety.  In appropriate circumstances, the Government may issue warning notices, establish safety standards, ban the supply of products or recall products.

This Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) considers the need to replace/update the existing Commonwealth Government Trade Practices Act regulation designed to ensure the safety of motor vehicle child restraints supplied in Australia.

A motor vehicle child restraint is a device intended, when correctly installed and adjusted, to restrain a child passenger in a motor vehicle and reduce the risk of bodily injury or death to children in the event of an accident/emergency.  Essentially, child restraints provide protection for young children who are too small to be effectively restrained by standard motor vehicle seat belts.  They are generally 'longer-life' type products which, if cared for properly, can be used over a lengthy period of time and for several children.

Legal Requirements

Design, Construction & Performance of Restraints (AS/NZS 1754)

The Commonwealth has mandated as law published Australian Standards for motor vehicle child restraints for over a quarter of a century under the Trade Practices Act (or TPA).  The mandatory standard was originally gazetted in 1978 and the latest revision was declared in December 1996.  The most recent mandatory standard is based on the design, construction and performance requirements contained in Australian Standard AS 1754:1991.  An amendment to the mandatory standard was made in 1999 to allow replacement parts (components) to be supplied for child restraints that complied with Australian Standard AS 1754:1975.

The mandatory TPA consumer product safety standard for motor vehicle child restraints acts as complementary legislation to the State/Territory road and traffic authorities’ user requirements.  Together, they ensure only safe product is available to, and used by, Australian consumers.

The motor vehicle child restraint mandatory standard has received widespread support from industry, consumers, consumer groups, child safety agencies, government authorities and others for many years.  The initial introduction of the mandatory standard occurred at a time when use of child restraints in motor vehicles was made compulsory in Australia and the Commonwealth was approached by the States and Territories who requested that complementary regulatory control be established on the standard of safety of restraints  supplied in Australia.

All published versions of AS/NZS 1754 have been drafted to ensure compatibility with relevant Australian Design Rules for motor vehicles.  These Design Rules ensure correct placement of anchorage points and seat belts used to secure the various types of permitted child restraints in vehicles.  Officers responsible for these Australian Design Rules are represented on the relevant Standards Australia motor vehicle child restraints technical committee.

Consumer affairs policy requires that mandatory standards be reviewed every 5 years.  A review of the legal requirements of the child restraints mandatory standard is therefore now due.  The mandatory standard does not contain a sunset clause, so it remains in force until it is affected by a subsequent Consumer Protection Notice.

In line with the above policy of review for consumer product safety standards, this RIS discusses the case of whether the existing mandatory standard applying to motor vehicle child restraints should be replaced with a new standard or some other non-regulatory option.  For example, consideration is given to a revised mandatory standard which takes into account the requirements of more recent voluntary Australian Standards, in particular, the latest developed Australian Standard AS/NZS 1754:2004 (incorporating amendment No. 1), published on 8 November 2004 by Standards Australia.

Use of Restraints

State and Territory road use regulations provide that only  prescribed child restraints (ie restraints meeting the requirements of AS/NZS 1754) can be fitted to a motor vehicle. Thus the current Trade Practices Act mandatory standard for child restraints complements these State/Territory based regulations by ensuring that only complying restraints may be supplied in the Australian market.  That said, State/Territory regulations relating to use are outside the scope of this RIS.

Child restraints must be correctly fitted in a vehicle to ensure their optimum operation.  However, this is also an issue that is beyond the scope of this RIS.  Correct fitment and use of these restraints is essentially a matter for suppliers (appropriate instructions), child safety organisations, carers,  and State and Territory road traffic authorities. 

Motor vehicle child restraints comprise a number of different types made to suit children of various ages, sizes and weights.  They can be either rearward-facing infant restraints with a harness or other means of retaining the occupant, forward-facing child seats with a harness, forward-facing harnesses without a chair, convertible child restraints or a booster seat/cushion used in conjunction with other child restraints and a seat belt.

Any Trade Practices Act  mandatory standard can only prescribe the design and/or performance and/or use instructions of the restraints at the point of supply.  However, the ACCC is able to influence appropriate use of restraints through targeted consumer awareness initiatives.  For example, there is some guidance on use of vehicle child restraints in the ACCC publication “Keeping Baby Safe” (last revised October 2005).

SAFETY PROBLEM

The Hazard

In the event of motor vehicle accidents, child passengers who are not adequately restrained are at risk of serious injury or death.  Standard motor vehicle seat belts are not effective for young children and Australian road laws recognise this by requiring the use of effective child restraints.

The overriding basic rule for the safety of children in cars is for every child to use the correct child restraint on every trip.  It is widely recognised that motor vehicle child restraints properly made and selected, correctly installed and adjusted, are able to restrain a child passenger in a motor vehicle and reduce the risk of bodily injury or death in the event of a motor vehicle accident/emergency.

Over the past 20 years, the Australian road toll has dropped dramatically.It is considered quite a reasonable proposition that the level of increased safety able to be provided by child restraints has made a significant contribution to this reduction (where young children are concerned) even though there are no available statistics which specifically/directly relate to the role of child restraints. [Data collected by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) covering the period 1925 to 1998 shows that road crashes in Australia involving fatalities have decreased, after a peak of 3,798 deaths in 1970.  When allowance is made for factors such as the increasing number of vehicles on the road and increasing population levels, it is apparent that the fatality rate has fallen markedly since the early 1970s.  This downward trend is exemplified throughout the recent ten year period 1995 to 2004, when Australian road fatalities fell from 2,017 to 1,596 (or by 21%)].  It is essential that motor vehicle restraints supplied on the Australian market are able to be easily installed and adjusted to effectively restrain a child passenger in a motor vehicle and prevent injury to the child in hazardous situations

.

The Australian Standard for motor vehicle child restraints (currently known as

AS/NZS 1754) is widely recognised internationally as the most stringent child restraint standard in the world.  Australia is seen as a world leader in setting the safety requirements for child restraints.  Children in Australian Standards approved child restraints have survived motor vehicle crashes previously thought to be unsurvivable by overseas experts.  As evidence of this, both the relevant European and US child restraint standards have either moved, or are in the process of moving, towards adopting the requirement for a “top tether” strap which Australia has required for many years as an added safety measure.  Various qualified bodies have affirmed the effectiveness of the Australian Standard for motor vehicle child restraints including, for example: at page 26, ‘The Australian Standard’ publication, August 2002, published by Standards Australia; and at page 3, ‘Buyers Guide to Child Restraints’ June 2000, published jointly by the NSW RTA, the RACV and NRMA Ltd.

The current TPA mandatory standard for vehicle child restraints plays an important role in injury reduction by helping ensure that inferior and ineffective child restraints cannot be supplied on the Australian market.  All child restraints sold in Australia must meet the design, performance and instruction requirements of the prescribed Australian Standard.

Injury Statistics

As mentioned earlier, it is difficult to obtain injury data to show whether motor vehicle child restraints, by themselves, have been effective in preventing infant injuries and death or that their improper selection and/or use has contributed to injury/death.  However, combined with other factors such as better roads, reduced speed limits, random breath testing and improved/safer motor vehicle design, etc, they have formed an integral part of improving the safety of children while travelling in motor vehicles and contributed to the reduction in the Australian road toll over the last two decades.  Since 1982, all Australian States and Territories have required child restraints in motor vehicles.  According to Kidsafe Australia, research has shown that approved and properly fitted child restraints may reduce the risk of death or serious injury in road crashes by up to 70%.

Injury data obtained from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) showing the number of fatalities for child passengers aged 0 -5 years of age from calendar year 1989 to 2006 (as far as their database stretches) shows a significant downward trend in child passengers up to 5 years of age fatally injured in motor vehicle crashes during that period.  Over this period, the number of child passengers up to 5 years of age fatally injured in motor vehicle crashes has fallen nationally from 42  to 30 deaths in 2005 (latest completed calendar year).  This represents a decline of around 30%.  For the decade to 2005, child passenger death numbers were as low as only 21 in 2002 and averaged around 28 deaths over that ten year period .  Year to date figures for 2006 at 31 August 2006 were 10 deaths only.

As regards serious injury data, we are advised that the ATSB’s information is sporadic, but it is understood that a similar downward trend is exhibited for child passengers up to 5 years of age seriously injured and admitted to hospital as a result of motor vehicle crashes in the period 1989 to 2006.

Although these observations cannot solely be attributable to the placing of a child in a child restraint, being placed in a motor vehicle child restraint which was properly made and selected, correctly installed and adjusted, would be a significant contributing factor in being able to restrain a child passenger in a motor vehicle and reduce the risk of bodily injury or death in the event of a motor vehicle accident.

Infants are amongst the most vulnerable in the community to serious injury or death, so any (albeit a declining) level of serious injury or death amongst children can be viewed as (still) unacceptable in our society.

Cost of Injuries

It is extremely difficult to estimate the cost of hospital or other medical treatment specifically related to injury/death resulting from an “unsafe” motor vehicle child restraint or inappropriate motor vehicle child restraint use.  Treatment costs form only part of the cost of injury to the community with other costs, including items such as an associated loss of family income, contributing significantly to the total cost burden on society.

Since record keeping began in 1925, there have been over 171,000 road fatalities nationally in Australia.  Specifically addressing road crash costs, the Commonwealth Bureau of Transport Economics (BTE) report ‘Road Crash Costs in Australia’, Report 102, May 2000, estimated the total cost of road crashes in Australia in 1996 was approx $15 billion (in 1996 dollar values).   The BTE report estimated the average cost of a fatality was $1.5 million, of a serious injury $325,000 and of a minor injury $12,000.

Similarly, it is very difficult to place a dollar amount on the value of a child’s life lost in a motor vehicle accident.  Many varying estimates of the $ value of a life have been made by overseas and Australian research experts.  Although the range of estimates contained in the literature is quite wide, it suffices to say that all experts attribute a fairly significant $ amount to the value of a human life.  In the USA, for example, a A$20 million equivalent was considered a reasonable  estimate for the value of one human life lost [based on the US National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper Series, No. 9396, ‘Changes in the Value of Life, 1940-1980’, December 2002]. In Australia, an article entitled “The value of life and health for public policy” (Abelson, P) estimates the value of a life lost in the range A$3.3 to 6.6 million.

Product Availability

New motor vehicle child restraints are widely available in Australia and sell well, mainly through retail infant products specialists stores and various department stores.

Child restraints are also available in Australia on the second-hand market and can be hired from organisations such as Kidsafe, the Red Cross and the Queensland Ambulance Service.  These options save on purchase costs and, in the case of hiring, also solves the problem of what to do with the restraint when it is no longer needed and, generally, allows the best available restraint to be used for each child.  Organisations that hire restraints normally provide a fitting and/or adjustment service and authorities such as the NSW RTA and VicRoads also approve many other fitting stations.

Most (around 95%) of motor vehicle child restraints available in Australia are manufactured locally by only a small number of suppliers (eg, by Britax Child-Care Products, Babylove and IGC (Australia) Pty Ltd) with some other models being made overseas and imported into the country – Infa Products, for example, import motor vehicle child restraints made in France which comply with the Australian Standard.  All child restraints currently supplied in Australia must also meet the Commonwealth Government's most recent mandatory consumer product safety standard which is in force under the Trade Practices Act, ie, that based on Australian Standard AS 1754:1991, which was gazetted on 18 December 1996. 

Around 250,000 child restraints are produced by manufacturers in Australia each year.  Sales of child restraints in Australia are estimated at between 205,000 to 250,000 units per year.  Type A restraints (up to 9kgs), Type B restraints (up to 18 kgs) and convertible restraints dominate this volume of sales representing around 60%.  The rest is made up of sales of booster seats, booster cushions and child harnesses.  Based on an average price of $250 for a child restraint, the retail value of child restraints sold per year is estimated at around $62.5m, of which around $3m is turnover of imported product.

As mentioned earlier, the Australian Standard for child restraints (AS/NZS 1754) is widely recognised internationally as the most stringent child restraint standard in the world with children in Australian Standards approved child restraints surviving motor vehicle crashes previously thought to be unsurvivable by overseas experts.  Market surveys show that all child restraints currently sold in Australia carry the Australian Standards mark.  Parents and other child carers can therefore have a great degree of confidence in the overall protection offered by the restraints available on the Australian market.  If correctly selected, installed and used, child restraints should provide protection for a child well beyond that of a standard seat belt.

Performance of Child Restraints

In the year 2000, the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), NRMA Ltd and the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV), produced a 'Buyers Guide to Child Restraints'.  This guide was produced after these organisations conducted a joint program to assess the relative performance of child restraints available in Australia.  The program covered crash testing (which was more rigorous than the Australian Standard), installation, use and compatibility with a range of cars.  The child restraints that performed best were given a preferred buy rating.

The preferred buy rating identified those restraints that performed best in the crash test program and were easier to use correctly.  A child restraint was given a preferred buy rating if it:

-                 peformed well in those crash tests that were tougher than the Australian Standard: and

-                 performed well for ease of correct installation and for ease of use.

-                  

A child restraint was not given a preferred buy rating if it:

-                 did not meet the Australian Standard's criteria at crash speeds higher than that required by the Standard;

-                 did not restrain the test dummy;

-                 broke a load-bearing component or rigid component; or

-                 allowed the test dummy's head to contact the test seat or side door structure.

-                  

The preferred buy rating is intended to be a guide for those buying a new restraint. 

The results of the performance assessment program indicated that many of the restraints tested performed extremely well and were able to achieve a preferred buy rating.  The results also indicated that those child restraints not given a preferred buy rating were still all able to meet the Australian Standard - recognised internationally as the most stringent child restraint standard in the world.

(NOTE: A similar performance assessment program undertaken by these organisations was also reported on in a July 2006 ‘Buyers Guide to Child Restraints’.  Once again, the results indicated that all restraints tested were able to successfully comply with the Australian Standard – with some clearly exceeding Australian Standard requirements.)

Why Continuing Government Action is Needed

A mandatory TPA safety standard for vehicle child restraints has been in place since 1978.  This regulation addressed market failure (the supply of inadequate and hazardous restraints) at that time and has continued to prevent any market failure since then.  The current child restraints market is considered extremely mature and conscientious in the sense that there are only a limited number of manufacturers/suppliers who are all acutely aware of (and adhere strictly to) the safety requirements of their product.  They all support the Australian Standard and the mandatory TPA regulation which is based on that Standard.  Consumers, consumer groups, etc, support the current balance of price, quality and safety that is represented by the Commonwealth’s regulatory presence in the supply of this product.

Because infants and young children are amongst members of the community most vulnerable to serious injury or death, any level of serious injury or death amongst children could be viewed as unacceptable in our society.  It is essential that motor vehicle restraints continue to be supplied on the Australian market which are properly made and will easily allow correct installation and adjustment so as to be able to effectively restrain a child passenger in a motor vehicle and prevent injury or death to the child in hazardous situations.  Without continuing Government action, suppliers (both existing and, in particular, possible new industry entrants) would be free to market any standard of restraint, without due consideration of key safety factors.  Due to the highly technical complexity of these dynamic/high performance safety products, child restraint buyers could not be expected to reasonably assess the safety or otherwise of a restraint.

Consumers would view abdication by Government from any role in the safety of motor vehicle child restraints as an indication that the Government is not serious about product safety, the safety of children and does not support Australian industry's product safety initiatives in developing what is recognised internationally as the most stringent child restraint standard in the world. For example, Australian supplied restraints have a “top tether” strap which prevents excessive forward or side movement of the restraint in the event of a collision. This requirement is part of the mandatory standard, but was included on the recommendation of all members, including industry members, of the standards writing committee. Other countries are considering including, or have included, this top tether requirement in their standards. Parents and other child carers should be able to remain confident in the overall protection offered by the child restraints available to them on the Australian market.

Allowing the use of accessories/components on old restraints

The current mandatory standard allows the supply of child restraint components for restraint systems made to the requirements of AS 1754:1975. This was done so as to minimise the cost burdens on owners of earlier (pre-1991) standards-compliant restraints and to allow a reasonable period of time for consumers to change over to later AS 1754:1991-compliant models.  Based on advice the ACCC has received from various sources, it is now considered timely to exclude from the implementation of the proposed new mandatory standard the supply of replacement parts (components) for restraints made to the older Australian Standard AS 1754:1975.   This mandatory requirement is now considered outdated, unnecessary and will be revoked so as to prevent/minimise the risk of possible unsafe (very) old child restraints from being used.  We envisage no market problems or consumer concerns from adopting this approach.  

Restraints for children with disabilities

Advice has also been received by the ACCC which indicates that it would be prudent for the requirements in AS/NZS 1754:2004 pertaining to restraints for children with disabilities (Clause 3.12 and other related clauses) to be excluded from the new mandatory standard as it raises significant supplier confusion and compliance/enforcement difficulties.  Clause 3.12 at p33 of AS/NZS 1754:2004 provides that child restraints designed for children with disabilities be simply required to meet the ‘intent’ of the Standard.  Similar wording has appeared in previous versions of AS/NZS 1754 (including the 1991 version upon which the current mandatory standard is based).  This has created a degree of confusion amongst suppliers and a general reluctance to supply restraints for children with disabilities for fear that their product may be interpreted not to comply with the Standard. 

It is therefore proposed that this requirement (Clause 3.12 and other related clauses) be exempted from the new mandatory standard and suppliers be encouraged instead to meet the specific voluntary Australian Standard AS/NZS 4370: 1996 ‘Restraint of children with disabilities in motor vehicles’, which specifies requirements specifically for restraints to be used for such children.  Adopting this approach will avoid confusion in the market and prevent difficulties in interpreting and assessing compliance with the mandatory standard.

Both these implementation and coverage issues relating to the proposed new mandatory standard which are mentioned above are considered essential to removing confusion in the market and to improving the overall ongoing effectiveness of motor vehicle child restraints safety regulation.

Objectives

The Objectives of Government Action

The Government’s consumer protection policy includes the objective of ensuring that consumer products are safe. The Trade Practices Act includes provisions to support this objective through the establishment of mandatory consumer product safety standards, product bans, recalls of unsafe products and the issuing of product safety warning notices.

In the case of motor vehicle child restraints, the Government’s aim is to develop a cost-effective strategy to continue to significantly reduce the rate of injury/death of child passengers involved in motor vehicle accidents.

CURRENT RESPONSES TO CHILD INJURIES/DEATHS IN MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS

Overseas Standards

A number of standards apart from the Australian Standard (currently AS/NZS 1754:2004) have been developed in other parts of the world for motor vehicle child restraints with the aim of providing a minimum (high) level of safety (eg, in the USA, Canada and Europe).  In addition, for over 10 years, a committee of experts operating under the International Standards Organisation (ISO) has been trying to develop an international (ISO) standard for child restraints.

Those overseas jurisdictions with motor vehicle child restraint standards make parts, or all, of their standards, mandatory, as in Australia.   However, it is widely recognised internationally that Australia is a world leader in motor vehicle child restraint safety, with the Australian Standard being considered the most effective in the world.  Not only has AS/NZS 1754 included dynamic testing in multiple directions, but it also has required features of the child restraint that have provided significant improvement in performance (as compared to the situation with restraints used in other countries).  In particular, part of the evolution of AS/NZS 1754 in Australia has seen the successful application of upper anchorage (or 'top tether') straps in addition to the use of seat belts for lower anchorage.  Australian and overseas research indicates that the additional use of a top tether strap gives the best performance in safety for child restraints and Australia is seen as the model for successful application of upper anchorage straps with over 20 years experience. Vehicle safety authorities are well represented on the Standards Australia technical committee which develops and reviews AS/NZS 1754.  This ensures that the requirements of the standard are compatible with relevant vehicle design rules, for example ensuring anchorage points are available in vehicles for attaching the top tether strap in the optimal position.

The USA has followed Australia's lead and revised its federal regulation on child restraints (FMVSS 213) to also require the use of upper anchorage straps from 1999 onwards.  Canada has similar regulations.  The standard used in Europe (the UN ECE Regulation 44) is currently under review and acceptance of the upper anchorage strap is yet to be fully embraced by all member countries, with some European experts claiming that upper anchorage straps would be subject to misuse and lack of use. 

The evolution of motor vehicle child restraint technology/development in the international community has now moved towards the development of restraints which do not require the use of fitted motor vehicle seat belts, but instead use either flexible or rigid lower attachment systems for anchorage.  In response to the newly developed child restraint technology, from 1 September 2002, the USA introduced provision for a new lower anchorage system (with flexible or rigid lower attachments) to attach to anchor bars in vehicles.  Canada is also expecting to adopt a similar regulation shortly.  European nations and the ISO committee are also proposing new lower anchorage systems, but they are concentrating on rigid lower attachment systems (or the ISOfix).

Existing Commonwealth Regulation or Policy in Australia

As noted above, the Commonwealth has been mandating the Australian Standard for motor vehicle child restraints for over a quarter of a century under the Trade Practices Act.  This mandatory standard was originally gazetted in 1978 and the latest revision occurred in December 1996.  The most recent mandatory standard is still based on

AS 1754:1991.  An amendment to the mandatory standard was made in 1999 to allow replacement parts (components) to be supplied for child restraints that complied with an older standard ie, Australian Standard AS 1754:1975.

Publication by Standards Australia of new Australian Standard - AS/NZS 1754:2004

Since the 1991 version of  AS/NZS 1754 was mandated into law by the Commonwealth, the voluntary Australian Standard has undergone a considerable number of changes and improvements under the auspices of the relevant Standards Australia Committee.  AS/NZS 1754:2004 (incorporating amendment No. 1) published on 8 November 2004 by Standards Australia, is intended to revise/supersede the previous published standard AS/NZS 1754:2000. 

AS/NZS 1754:2004 specifies minimum design, construction and performance requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles in order to promote the provision of a high level of protection for children placed in them.  Requirements for informative labelling, instructions, marking and packaging are also specified in the new revised version.

The major changes in the 2004 version of AS/NZS 1754 include: introduction of more rigorous side impact testing, including the use of a simulated vehicle door; a change to the testing of Type A2 restraints (rearward facing restraint with a harness or other means of retaining the occupant suitable for infants up to 12 kgs) to allow the use of a P 1½ test dummy with mass increased to 12 kgs by using clothing, shoes, and head/chest transducers; and a labelling requirement for booster cushions stating that the device offers no side impact protection and recommending that the booster cushion should not be used in the outboard seating position. 

The introduction of a specification permitting the approval of a new lower anchorage system for restraints without using seatbelts has not been included in the new 2004 version of the Australian Standard.  This has been delayed pending further comprehensive ongoing testing and evaluation by the Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Services on the effect that introducing such lower anchorages will have on the current existing high safety levels that have been achieved for child restraints in Australia.

OPTIONS

The viable options considered available to achieve the Government’s consumer product safety objective are:

1. maintain the status quo;

2. industry self-regulation;

3 consumer education;

4. an updated mandatory standard to reflect Australian/New Zealand Standard  AS/NZS 1754:2004 which was published by Standards Australia in late 2004.

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Who is affected by the problem and who is likely to be affected by its proposed solution?

The proposed viable options would affect consumers who purchase restraints and their infants, businesses/industry involved in the supply of restraints (importers, distributors, retailers and hiring organisations) and government (including consumer product regulators and providers of public health services). 

Option 1: Maintain the status quo

Maintaining the status quo would still ensure a reasonable level of protection for consumers.  However, the requirements of the existing mandatory standard (still based on AS 1754:1991) are ‘out of step’ with the latest standard published by Standards Australia (AS/NZS 1754:2004), and with industry itself, since the existing mandatory standard does not fully address issues created by child restraint improvements arising from new technology, improved testing procedures, etc, which are reflected in post-1991 versions of AS /NZS 1754.  This has led to a level of confusion in the marketplace, as currently supplied new child restraints are being supplied and certified to AS/NZS 1754:2004.

The industry is already voluntarily complying with the 2004 version of the Australian Standard AS/NZS 1754 which incorporates, expands and improves upon the requirements of the long superseded 1991 Australian Standard.  Thus for existing market participants, there are no additional costs of compliance with the 1991 Australian Standard.  For new market entrants, the cost of manufacturing and product testing to both the 1991 Australian Standard or later versions of the Standard are similar.  There is no financial incentive to manufacture to the superseded 1991 Australian Standard when later updated Australian Standards are available and consumer demand indicates a preference for restraints made to latest available standards.

Costs and benefits for consumers

Choice and price for consumers would remain unchanged.  Although access to restraints which meet AS/NZS 1754:2004 is not a problem as industry itself has (responsibly) voluntarily ‘moved ahead’ from the mandatory standard in its supply decision, there is a cost to consumers arising from the lack of regulatory protection able to be offered by a mandatory standard which does not take into account the child restraint improvements from new technologies, improved testing procedures, etc, which have emerged over the last ten years or so.

The only benefit to consumers would be continuing confidence that the goods they buy are safe and appropriately labelled.

Costs and benefits to industry

The main cost to industry would be the expense of having to maintain regulatory compliance with a superseded Australian Standard while also striving to comply/compete in the market with the most recently published Australian Standard.  There would be no discernible benefit to industry associated with this option.  In respect of the child restraint hire sector, participants have indicated that they prefer to not hire out restraints which are older than 10 years.  This is considered a restraint’s effective (“safe”) life.

Both imported and locally manufactured restraints have been subject to a mandatory TPA standard since 1978.  Maintaining the 1991 Australian Standard as the TPA regulation will have no trade impact that is any different from moving to a more recently published Australian Standard.  In order to compete with domestic manufacturers who are already producing to AS/NZS 1754:2004, imported product meets this Standard as well.  While there are costs associated with manufacturing to a prescribed standard compared with no standard, these costs are accepted by the community in order to ensure the safety of a vulnerable group (children).  Australia’s trade agreements provide for regulation necessary for the health and welfare of its citizens.  The mandatory standard applies equally to both imported and domestically produced product, and so there are no discriminatory competitive issues.

Costs and benefits to government

The ACCC budgets for enforcement costs of $20,000 per year for each standard, to cover market surveys, testing and legal expenses.  Another cost to government is that because the existing mandatory standard does not reference the most up to date tests in international standards, it could be seen as a barrier to trade.  There are no discernible benefits for government associated with this option.

Option 2: Industry Self-Regulation

Industry self-regulation is voluntary action by industry to control the supply of particular products.

In the absence of a mandatory standard the possible outcomes are:

• availability on the Australian market of products which do not meet acceptable standards of safety;
   
• insufficient product safety information on child restraints to facilitate ease and safety of use;
   
• loss of certainty for consumers, manufacturers, distributors and retailers that the child restraints on the market provide a sufficient level of safety;
   
• possible wider product choice for consumers;
   
• possible cheaper restraints on the market; and
   
• continued conformance with Australian Standards by some industry members as ‘good corporate citizens’ and to guard against litigation, but other suppliers sourcing cheaper, non-conforming restraints.

Costs and benefits to consumers

The potential costs to consumers include:

• a loss in certainty that the products on sale provide an adequate level of safety. (Note:  This would be a considerable cost as, since the original mandatory standard was introduced in 1978, consumers have had that certainty in their purchase decision for over a quarter of a century.); 
• cheaper, inferior and unsafe child restraints could become available and serve to weaken consumer confidence in the market; and
   
• consumers bear the cost of injury/ death arising from accidents associated with the use of inferior child restraints.

The possible benefits to consumers would be a wider choice of child restraints and potentially cheaper prices.

Costs and benefits to industry

Industry would not be subjected to the cost of developing a voluntary code of conduct, since they could voluntarily agree to comply with the existing Australian Standard.  Testing and certification to the Australian Standard could not be counted as a cost, since it is not required by the mandatory standard, although suppliers voluntarily do so.

Some businesses could be undercut by independent suppliers providing restraints which do not comply with the mandatory standard at a cheaper price.  Industry could also be subject to costly product liability litigation from supplying unsafe goods.

One possible benefit to industry could be a reduction in compliance and manufacturing costs if restraints were made to a lower standard/quality.  However, such benefits would be likely to be more than offset by the cost of lower demand and higher product liability exposure.

The restraint hire sector in Australia only supplies restraints that meet the Australian Standard.  They have no interest in supplying other (non-conforming) products as their safety could not be established.

Costs and benefits to government

Government could incur additional costs incurred as added reliance on the judicial system for redress, in the case of the supply of dangerous goods (eg the potential legal costs associated with compulsory recalls).  Government could also be subjected to increased health costs due to higher rates of injury and deaths.

Industry would be critical of government for not establishing a mandatory safety standard to support industry’s own efforts to provide safer products for the community.

Child safety agencies and consumer groups would be critical of government for not taking the safety of children in Australia seriously.

Government would obtain reduced GST revenue returns from sales of lower priced restraints.

The only benefit to government would be a saving in enforcement costs of $20,000 per year.  However this benefit would be offset by the legal costs described above.

Option 3:  Consumer Education

Consumer education could be provided by suppliers, government, child safety organisations, etc, or in a partnership arrangement between the parties.  In Australia, consumer education has in fact already been conducted collaboratively by all these parties over many years as a supplement to the mandatory TPA standard.

Costs and benefits to consumers

The costs to consumers would include:

• Consumers would have the ongoing problem of selecting appropriate child restraints for their children using information provided by suppliers, other agencies and education campaigns.  Since the current mandatory standard is a highly technical one, many consumers would have difficulty understanding the safety issues involved;

• a loss in certainty that the products on sale provide an adequate level of safety. (Note: This would be a considerable cost as, since the original mandatory standard was introduced in 1978, consumers have had that certainty in their purchase decision for over a quarter of a century.);
   
• cheaper, inferior and unsafe child restraints could become available and serve to weaken consumer confidence in the market; and
   
• consumers bear the cost of injury/ death arising from accidents associated with the use of inferior child restraints.

The only benefit for consumers would be the availability of lower priced restraints and possibly greater choice of products. 

Costs and benefits to industry

There are no additional costs to industry associated with this option.  Any costs that industry wishes to incur by promoting their own child restraints will be done so on a voluntary basis, indicating that the expected resulting revenue gain will be greater than the costs.

There are no discernible benefits to industry associated with this option.  Fitting and use instructions are provided by suppliers with all new child restraints.  The restraint hire sector already invests significant resources in advocating the (safe) use of restraints complying with the Australian Standard and provides inspection and fitting services to assist.  The peak child safety organisation Kidsafe operates on a State by State basis and produces safety awareness booklets which include coverage of child restraints.

Costs and benefits to government

Government would be responsible for funding consumer education.  A suitable strategy could comprise the publication and distribution of information leaflets and advertising in parenting magazines at an estimated cost of $25,000 per annum.  (This estimate is based on the cost of the recently undertaken education campaign on the safe use of basketball rings and backboards.)

The only benefit to government would be the potential to reduce child injuries or deaths in motor vehicle accidents by educating consumers on how to select safe child restraints.  However, as the information associated with the safety of child restraints is highly technical, there is no certainty that consumers would be able to act on the information provided.

Option 4:  An updated mandatory standard based on AS/NZS 1754: 2004

Costs and benefits to consumers

There would be no additional costs to consumers.  New restraints in the marketplace are already currently supplied and certified to AS/NZS 1754:2004.

The benefits to consumers would be the availability on the Australian market of child restraints which are as safe as, if not safer than, anywhere else in the world.  It is widely recognised internationally that Australia is a world leader in motor vehicle child restraint safety, with the Australian Standard being considered the most effective in the world.

Costs and benefits to industry

There would be no additional costs associated with an updated mandatory standard as compared to the status quo.  The Australian market has ‘moved ahead’ of its own accord and already supplies/certifies new child restraints to AS/NZS 1754:2004 in response to consumer demand and a progressive/responsible industry.

The benefits are access to clear, specific and up to date mandatory requirements which specify minimum design, construction and performance requirements, and requirements for more effective and informative labelling, instructions, marketing and packaging.  The updated mandatory standard would also help to enhance consumer confidence in industry as a supplier of safe products and remove the level of market confusion that exists on the part of suppliers.

As the trend internationally is to align with the later versions of the Australian Standard (particularly the use of the “top tether”), introduction of these more recent versions in an updated TPA mandatory safety standard are not expected to introduce any unreasonable new barriers to trade or any new competition issues.

Costs and benefits to government

Enforcement costs are estimated at $20,000 per annum (to cover market surveys, testing and legal expenses).  This is the same as the status quo so there is no additional cost to government.

The benefits to government are greater ease of enforcement and removal of a possible barrier to trade.  The more stringent safety requirements and more specific labelling would maximise the potential to reduce child injuries/deaths arising from motor vehicle accidents.

The well-being of the community in general and, especially, those most vulnerable such as young children is a keystone of government policy.  An updated mandatory standard will reassure the community that product safety is being addressed by the government and that its mandatory requirements are not being allowed to get out of step with developments in Australian and international standards.

CONSULTATION

This RIS has been circulated for consideration by interested parties, including State/Territory consumer affairs and fair trading agencies, enforcement agencies, child safety organisations, suppliers of child restraints, industry organisations, and consumer groups.

All parties strongly support the current regulatory stance of having a mandatory standard for motor vehicle child restraints, and are supportive of the Commonwealth’s proposal to continue regulating the supply of motor vehicle child restraints based on a revision of the current (but seriously outdated) mandatory standard to reflect more recent (and relevant) Australian Standards.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDED OPTION

Maintaining the existing mandatory standard is not considered feasible because it is out of date and does not take into account child restraint improvements from new technological developments, improved testing procedures, etc.  Furthermore access (physical and practical) to the superseded Australian Standard (AS/NZS 1754: 1991) is now becoming problematic.

The option of industry self-regulation is not considered feasible, given the high level of risk to children and the lack of a cohesive industry association. 

Consumer education alone is not considered feasible, again given the high level of risk to children and the danger of cheaper, unsafe products being imported, taken together with the complexity of the subject matter.

Option 4, maintaining explicit government regulation by declaring an updated mandatory standard based on Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 1754: 2004 Child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles, would improve the level of protection for consumers, make compliance easier for industry, give appropriate recognition to the value of the work contributed to the development of the revised Australian Standard, and remove a potential barrier to trade.  (This is a highly technical standard in which all clauses are interrelated and all combine to address the safety of the product, which is why it is proposed to mandate the whole of the standard, as is similarly done with other technical standards such as sunglasses.)  For these reasons, Option 4 is the recommended option.

NOTE: The Government’s decision that a Business Cost Calculator (BCC) be used to assess the business compliance costs arising from regulatory proposals has been noted and the applicable costs have been examined in the analysis when preparing this RIS.  Unfortunately, describing and estimating the costs to various types of business (eg: importers, domestic manufacturers, retailers, etc) in complying with the proposed revised/updated TPA regulation is almost impossible to do beyond what we have already done in the RIS.  This is because compliance costs for the current mandatory standard are already well absorbed into the structure, industry is already supplying/pricing to the 2004 Australian Standard for child restraints, and the proposed new mandatory standard will not (in effect) involve any more costs to business than are already being incurred.  For this reason, the BCC approach has not been successful in this particular case.  Also, we are dealing with only a very small segment of the overall children’s nursery furniture type manufacturing industry and our research has shown that industry does not keep “micro” details of these sort of costs.  During the consultation period, it was endeavoured to obtain this type of information but it was not available/forthcoming.

IMPLEMENTATION AND REVIEW

The new mandatory standard for child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles would commence from 1 October 2007 and be subject to review five years later. 

In view of the recognised ‘long life’ of child restraints and the continued sale and hire of older model child restraints which were made to meet the requirements of

earlier versions of AS/NZS 1754 (including the 1991 version of the voluntary Australian Standard which the current TPA mandatory safety standard is based upon), it is considered that the best way forward will be for the revised mandatory standard to require adherence to (at least) either the performance requirements specified in the previously published 1995 or 2000 versions of AS/NZS 1754 or the new (current) revised published version of AS/NZS 1754 ie, AS/NZS 1754:2004. 

.

Public Awareness

The introduction of the revised motor vehicle child restraint mandatory safety standard would be publicised to raise community awareness of the Government’s updated safety requirements and to highlight to parents and other child carers how the correct usage of complying restraints should, in general, significantly decrease the risk of their children suffering serious injury or death in a motor vehicle accident.

The safety standard will ensure that new child restraint products on the market provide a high level of protection for children placed in the product. 

In relation to the many older restraints already in use in the community which may successfully meet earlier versions of AS/NZS 1754 but may not meet all the new version of the Australian Standard published in 2004 by Standards Australia, a product safety awareness campaign accompanying the introduction of the updated revised TPA mandatory standard will provide the key mechanism for improving safe use of earlier model restraints.   Consumers should be made aware though that those restraints which meet the requirements of earlier published versions of AS/NZS 1754 are still generally considered safe, but use of child restraints which are more than 10 years old and meet versions of AS/NZS 1754 published before 1995 is generally not recommended.

The awareness campaign would comprise the publication of information on product safety web-sites, in relevant parenting magazines and in brochures/leaflets for distribution to parents, suppliers, supplier organisations, child care organisations, child safety organisations and agencies responsible for consumer product safety.  Previous experience in product safety awareness campaigns is that some suppliers also assist by voluntarily promoting safe use of their products.

Review

In accordance with Commonwealth consumer affairs’ policy to review product regulations each 5 years to ensure that they remain relevant, a review of the revised mandatory standard for motor vehicle child restraints will be undertaken after 5 years of operation. 

It is proposed that the revised mandatory standard will be reviewed about 12 months before the expiry of the 5 year period in order to assess whether it continues to be relevant to the market.

Effectiveness will be assessed through monitoring compliance through the ACCC’s and State/Territory market surveys and recall action.

************************************************************