There was a discussion on the ExplorOz forum about hitch extensions. Here is one comment that seems relevant:
"Towbars are subject to ADR62/01 and /02 and designed to a specific load rating.
Any modification, including extending the tongue, invalidates the original rating.
By extending the tongue (fitting an "extender") moves the fulcrum point and increases the torque component on the bar."
There is also an Australian Standard for towbar construction:
AS 4177.1
I tried to buy a simple hitch extension tube several years ago and every shop I called said they were illegal under ADR and some noted that the towbar manufacturer would have to certify its use, could not see that happening. Luckily I found the KJ LT tonque and that solved my problem.
I see a fundamental problem with bringing in any tyre carrier that works by attaching to the original ADR approved hitch, and extends the existing hitch point rearward for towball or recovery hitch fitting. The original rating of the vehicle hitch will be made invalid by the attachment of the new device. The new device (tyre carrier hitch) is unlikley to be approved (or rated) under ADR or the AS (static and dynamic testing regime). I suppose, like many mods that we do to our vehicles, that a lack of certification may not be an issue for some (or even many) people. That of course leads to questions about liability and insurance coverage (or not) if the tyre carrier hitch should fail at some point, or come into question in an accident investigation. On the other hand, if it was only ever used as a tyre carrier (and not a hitch extension for towing purposes or recovery) then it could fall into the same category as things like the Hitchmate (which is a cargo carrier but does not provide and extend the hitch receiver).
http://www.hitchmate.com.au/
When the tyre carrier is simply a 'load' on the original hitch (and does not extend), and complies with the towball weight limitations then it should be legal. On a KJ 2.8L CRD that towball weight factor is 280kg. Of course the rego plate and rear light visability regulations would also have to be met.
Certainly not playing at 'bush lawyer' here, that's just what turns up in searches that I did on the subject.