What changes to child seat safety rules mean for you

Being able to fit three child seats side-by-side in your car can make life a lot easier for families without the need to upgrade to a people-mover or van.

Not only that, but using the middle position for a single child seat can also give adults in the front more space to put their seats back.

And in smaller cars or SUVs, putting a child seat in the middle alongside another on one of the outboard seats can also be the preferred option to fit an adult passenger in the rear row too.

RELATED: Which cars have five top-tether points?

But family convenience may be about to take a back seat (pardon the pun) with changes proposed to design laws that mean in future it may not be possible to use the centre seat anymore.

Here’s what’s happening and what it means for you.

What is the law on fitting a child seat?

Requirements for how child seats must be installed in cars are laid out in the Australian Design Rules (ADRs), specifically in this case ADR 34, which states that all passenger vehicles must have three top-tether anchor points in the second row to be considered a five-seat car.

All passenger cars manufactured in the last 20 years should have them.

Equally, all child seats must have a top tether strap and clip provided, whether they be capsules for babies, convertible car seats for toddlers and preschoolers, or boosters for older children.

At the moment, there are no laws requiring vehicles with seven or eight seats to have top-tether points in the third row, with some manufacturers adding top-tether points on their large SUVs, people-movers and vans and some not.

Light commercial vehicles, such as utes, are exempt from having to have top-tether points, but most do – even if there are sometimes only two. In utes it can also be common to find that the top tether runs through a fabric loop to a single central metal hook – though you can, in theory, connect three car seats this way.

What’s being changed?

The Federal Government has introduced 13 new ADRs and updated 31 existing ones since 2023.

However, in 2024 the government commissioned transport safety expert Dr Warren Mundy to carry out an independent review of the rules and whether they should be more closely aligned with international standards.

Although ADR 34 isn’t specifically on the chopping block, there are a number of critics of it – with two top-selling car brands among them – who believe it should be.

If the government did change ADR 34, it could make a centre-seat top-tether optional rather than mandatory on new cars being sold in Australia, meaning you wouldn’t be able to legally use the middle seat with a child seat.

As a consequence, your only option would be to have a child seat fitted to either of the outboard seats in your car and a maximum of two in a five-seater.

Why change it?

Two of the biggest car makers – Nissan and Mitsubishi – believe our local standards should be harmonised with those set by the UN.

Their main argument is that them not having to fit a third top-tether point on every car coming to Australia would enable them to bring more models in and make compliance quicker.

This could mean getting more low-emission (mostly smaller) cars here faster, giving Australians more options when it comes to transitioning to an electric vehicle.

Potentially, though perhaps unlikely, it could make cars cheaper because the cost of compliance would be less, which is currently passed on to the consumer.

And with smaller cars generally being cheaper, this could help with people’s cost of living pressures.

“Nissan has recommended to the Australian Government that as part of preparing for the introduction of New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES), there in an update to the Road Vehicle Standards Act (RVSA) Type Approval Pathway requirements to allow direct acceptance of type approved vehicles from global major markets in full volume supply (Section 15 of RVS Rules),” a spokesperson for Nissan Australia told Drive.

“A stated goal of the NVES is to speed up the introduction of low-emissions vehicles that are available overseas. The Road Vehicle Standards Act (RVSA) Type Approval Pathway can slow down the introduction of vehicles to the Australian market, or in some cases make the business case to introduce a vehicle unviable.

“Importantly, by harmonising Australian Design Rules and allowing Direct Acceptance of Type Approvals from major markets, there is no compromise on safety.”

Mitsubishi Motors Australia’s Chief Executive Officer, Shaun Westcott, also recently told Drive that changing Australian Design Rules (ADRs) gives buyers less choice.

“The reality is that we have less choice in Australia because of these unique requirements. It doesn’t matter who you are, to modify your vehicle, to adapt it for Australia, that adds cost, adds complexity,” he said.

“At the end of the day, and I’m not arguing against ADRs, all I’m saying is let’s achieve some form of global harmonisation. It’s going to reduce costs, it’s going to reduce complexity and it’s going to increase choice for Australians. 

“And my challenge to anybody is that if it’s good enough for Europe or it’s good enough for America or if it’s good enough for Japan, what’s so different about us?

“Are we trashing all the Europeans and saying they don’t care about safety for their kids? Really? Is that what we’re saying?”

And these two brands are not alone – their views are endorsed by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI), which represents the majority of car makers in Australia.

The FCAI’s official position is that the government should “withdraw all unique ADRs for light passenger and light commercial vehicles and succeed them with fully harmonised regulations” – including ADR 34 regarding child restraint anchorages and fittings.

“The practical impact of this is that Australia would be able to harmonise with globally accepted standards, removing costs and time-related with re-engineering vehicles specifically for the Australian market,” a spokesperson for the FCAI told Drive.

“This is increasingly important in a highly competitive global market, where development costs associated with specific market requirements can have significant impacts on consumers.”

According to the FCAI, its members are “generally supportive” of changing ADRs.

The Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) safety authority also believes it’s time the regulations were reviewed.

“It’s an area that should be considered whether we should be adopting the European standard. We’d like to see it examined and addressed,” Chief Executive Carla Hoorweg recently told Drive.

“There are reasons I think historically why those different child seat standards were brought in for the Australian market. Whether those still make sense with contemporary vehicle design is the question that we’ve got.” 

And it’s a stance also shared by the Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association (AAAA), which has called the review “a long-overdue opportunity to address critical challenges faced by the automotive industry”.

“ADRs have long been influenced by European regulations, but they no longer reflect the realities of the Australian market,” said Lesley Yates, AAAA’s Director of Government Relations and Advocacy.

“Consumer preferences have shifted dramatically toward US-style 4x4s, utilities, and recreational vehicles, yet our regulations remain stuck in a European-centric framework that doesn’t align with Australia’s needs.”

Why shouldn’t it be changed?

On the other side of things, some believe having top-tether points – rather than a support ‘leg’ that wedges into the floor as used in Europe – as well as using ISOFIX anchors makes child seats safer.

Carl Liersch, General Manager of APV-T Engineering and Testing Services, which tests child seats in crash tests among other equipment, says having the requirement helps Australia set a higher standard than anywhere else.

“There are lots of things that we can harmonise on within the ADRs and the UN regulations. So there are some good objectives there. What I would say is that there’s a number of areas where the ADRs are different to the UN regulations and it’s good because we set a higher standard,” he told us.

“The child seats standard that we have in Australia I think is benchmark-setting for the world. I think the standards that we have for our child seats are more demanding and tougher than you would find in the US and Europe. I see that as a good thing. We want to look after our kids and protect them. The top tether is an important part of that, just as the ISOFIX is important.

“The top tether is a really good part of child seat design and holding the child’s seat in a good position in the event of an accident, particularly when we are talking about booster seats, seats for kids that are a little bit older from I guess three years old and six years old, even up to 10-year-olds, that top tether is really helpful.

“I think the top tether is the most effective solution when you are focusing on protection of the child, which should be our primary objective when it comes to the centre seat.

“And honestly there’s enough choice on the market when it comes to cars. We’ve got more cars here than they have in Europe in terms of type and variety.

“[Changing the law] would be taking a step backward and that would be a problem in my view.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication and The Arts said its review, which got underway in December 2024, “is examining the current process of how the ADRs are harmonised with international standards, including identifying opportunities to improve that process; however, it is not examining individual ADRs”.

“The top-tether anchorage requirements in ADR 34 have been written to ensure compatibility with the mandatory product safety standard in Australia for child car seats, and the Australian Road Rules that govern how these child car seats must be used to safely restrain children in vehicles,” they told Drive.

“Three top-tether anchorages are not a unique Australian requirement. This is also a requirement in the United States and Canada. The United Nations vehicle regulation, as legislated in the European Union, also has requirements for at least two top-tether anchorages in passenger cars and sports utility vehicles.

“The government continually reviews and updates the ADRs to ensure they remain relevant and fit for purpose.”

According to the Federal Government, it already uses UN regulations except where it considers there are variations which should be best handled locally. It says ADR 34 is one of these that aligns with the UN standard, but goes further by requiring the additional top-tether anchor for most passenger cars and SUVs.

Cars without a third top-tether anchor

Cars being sold without the centre-seat top-tether is not unprecedented in Australia.

In early 2024, locally delivered examples of the Tesla Model 3 electric sedan had to be recalled because it was missing the middle-seat anchor point, which is a legal requirement to be considered a five-seat passenger vehicle.

Prior to that, in 2022 BYD had to put a stop sale on its Atto 3 electric SUV and recall those already with customers, after it was discovered the centre-seat top-tether point was there behind the seat lining but not accessible from the boot. 

Additionally, the model had ISOFIX points in the front passenger seat, which was also against the law as children are not legally allowed to sit in a front seat unless they meet the minimum age and height requirements or it’s a two-seat car, and these had to be disabled.

Also in 2022, the Honda HR-V small SUV was missing the middle anchor point, but the car maker elected to put the model on sale in Australia as a four-seat car instead.

The post What changes to child seat safety rules mean for you appeared first on Drive.