Hi @ErinTurner, I believe the inquiry is closed but I am working on contacting the Productivity Commission with an evidential example just in case. Edit: The PC advised the report has gone to government so they cannot accept additional submissions.
The history is a KWC Ono mixer that has a veg spray. The mixer was expensive. The spray part has exhibited the same operational problem leading to the same failure at similar intervals of about 2 years. In 9 years; I am on the 4th spray part that is now failing to operate properly.
Disassembling one reveals the wear parts are 4 O-rings and potentially a spring. It seems a ‘simple device’ yet is ‘not repairable’ by definition. For clarity all I asked for the last 2 failures were the specs for the O-rings… The importer, PR Kitchens cannot/will not provide repair instructions or the specification for the O-rings. While under warranty the part is routinely replaced. Post warranty the spray part is offered for $468+ shipping.
PRK seems aware the retailer owns ‘the bag’ under the ACL, and as far as they are concerned Consumer Affairs Victoria is less threatening than a miniature Chihuahua. Reviewing Consumer Affairs web site seems to confirm that is going to be the case if it comes to that, but that is another matter. It appears the Right to Repair and the reality of how companies can respond or decline to respond to the ACL could make a Right to Repair outcome for consumers less likely if there is a similarity. As with the ACL itself, companies that are willing to do step up, and those that are not willing do not step up, and do not need to pending the consumer achieving a successful litigation/tribunal determination.
Edit:The retailer is on the case and doing the right thing!
The Productivity Commission released it’s Right to Repair report today, and CHOICE is supporting the recommendations and will be urging the government to adopt them. One of the recommendations is for a ‘durability’ label, which would give an indication of how long products should be expected to last.
We know from previous surveys that the idea of system to show product durability at point of sale is popular (receiving an 88% support rate). We’re interested to hear people’s responses to the report, along with the idea of a durability label, please add your thoughts to this thread.
I like the idea of a repairability label or information. If this was available, it would definitely be used in purchase decisions.
With many new products containing many parts, including electronics and batteries, it would be good to know what things can easily be replaced with spare parts. The only challenge may being able to find replacement parts, but, if there is an increased spare parts market created by consumers knowledge of things that can be repaired, it might stimulate a wider market for spare parts.
List of replaceable parts could easily be included in user guides, with labelling indicating what key parts are repairable.
If this comes about it will be interesting to see for what classes of products (if any) it is made compulsory and for the products that have the label how the expected life compares to the makers’ warranty period.
How to shortcut the task given the length of both the ‘Overview and Recommendations’ (43 pages), and ‘Enquiry Report’ (approx 400 pages). I’m assuming you read the appendices, reference lists etc in full.
Page 2 of the overview and Recommendations summarises all to a one page box of key points. For those more motivated and time poor skipping to numbered page 29 will save. It lists the key findings and recommendations. Eleven pages in all.
The terms of reference from the Treasurer can be found in the intro to the full report.
It’s great that the report recognises there are numerous opportunities for improvement. Implementation of the actions recommended requires government support or actions to have any effect.
Considering the 7 product failures we’ve needed to act on over the previous 12 months, all but one would have benefitted from delivery of the recommendations of the report. (3 vehicle related, DW, AC, espresso machine, Fitbit)
Whether some of the recommended actions improve consumer outcomes or drive products from our market place is open to further discussion?
Australia is too small a market to drive or influence on it’s own change. The report makes reference to the evolving requirements of the EU and others. It would have been reassuring to see a recommendation to keep up with international actions. If for no other reason than to avert Australia becoming the backwater and dumping ground for yesterday’s unwanted products.
On one hand that is an astute observation, on another international regulations are routinely watered down to suit producers/businesses/manufacturers. Someone has to take a lead but pity it might not be one of the biggest economic players having serious clout.
“Regulator powers to enforce consumer guarantees” are already in place, but rarely used and they certainly aren’t enforced to help individual consumers.
“States and Territories use of alternative dispute resolution options to better resolve complaints”. Can the Commonwealth really stop States and Territories from just acting as post-boxes?
It is a start, but nothing really addresses the imbalance of power, and it will likely be left to individual consumers to battle it out.
Windows 11. @BrendanMays
MS will only upgrade to Win 11 on hardware that meets very specific criteria, eg, specific CPU. Even to the point where their own MS tablets, although meeting the power/capacity specs aren’t included in the specific CPUs. It seems the actual specs required isn’t actually needed, from the pure workability of Windows 11, rather just MS belief that you would be better off with a faster more powerful machine.
I find this quite bewildering. Typical Office desktops, ie, those used by companies, don’t need huge performance, speed, storage, flashy graphics and sound, unlike say the specialist fields of gaming and companies working in the graphics fields. But, your average company desktop, doesn’t need much more than say the MS Office suite, that will run on a pre 2000 machine.
In the 1990s when we were preparing for the millennium switchover, there were quite legitimate issues with hardware internal clocks, and software that didn’t use dates with 4 character years. Many, probably most non IT users thought the millennium issue was a non event, they were right because we worked day and night to test and change h/w and s/w beforehand. However, there is no such issue or need with Windows 11.
Teslas are arguably software with a car around it. There are many reports of Tesla parts being unavailable for lengthy times as well as expensive. Tesla (and John Deere) have led push back to opening up their eco systems while maintaining top prices and owners being at the whims of their dealer/repair networks.
So far it seems our Productivity Commission has yet to be interested as neither the words ‘repair’ or ‘software’ were found in their strategy document.
When a repair is done here under ACL or Warranty the device/product repaired still has only the normal period of coverage, and with ACL this has to be determined what is reasonable for the product. Under this new EU right to repair, a device gets an extra 12 months of warranty added automatically, while this is of obvious benefit to many, the feeling is that it will still be a preferred option to replace the faulty product “The repair option is sweetened with an addition of an extra year of warranty coverage, but many folks are probably just going to prefer a replacement”.
If we had such a right to repair warranty extension here, would we take the repair route or would we mostly opt to get a replacement? I would almost certainly take the extended coverage. When I can repair goods myself (often too old to receive even ACL coverage), I save myself large amounts of money, I don’t have to waste products by disposal of goods that can be re-used, and I save the World some resources. I would be happy that I can attend a repair place and have a service done that extends the life and coverage of the goods without my sometimes erroneous input.
I don’t think this original issue is about a right to a repair as something covered by the ACL or warranties in general.
It is about a right to repair things oneself or engage a repairer separate from the manufacturer to do so.
The parts needed should be available. The tools needed should be available. And the technical documentation should be available. And the ability to deal with software settings should be available.
My understanding is that The US and EU legislation goes beyond warranty.
“Similarly to recent repair laws in US states like California and New York, the EU’s directive requires manufacturers to “provide access to spare parts, repair and maintenance information or any repair related software tools, firmware or similar auxiliary means.” While the manufacturers need to offer a repair solution, this does not necessarily imply better access to self-repair.”
They have legislated to ensure that the public has access to spare parts and information that allows them to repair out of warranty items or acquire the genuine spare parts and information rather than contributing to landfill.
Have you every tried to get a simple part for a printer for instance, in Australia, it is very difficult.
As a graduate engineer I sift through the BS and often are able to repair my and my friends’ equipment.
It would be must simpler if the parts were more easily available. The alternate currently seems to be to return it to an “authorised” repair who would charge more that a replacement.
The EU changes are about both the self right to repair and the ability to take it to another place to have it repaired (voucher systems and similar support this other repairer scenario). Some products are designed with “throwaway” in mind, some parts are unobtainable through the manufacturer and reliance on non-OEM is required. Then we have businesses that lock repairs into their own system, no outside repairs permitted as this will void any original warranty provided.
The right to repair is about much more than my right to solely fix an item, some repairs must be done by suitably qualified technicians (e.g., 240 V items require an electrical licenced technician). If I can find an appropriate repairer nearby who is efficient, effective, and cost is reasonable, then my right to repair should allow this. Parts, manuals, tools, needed to carry out the work should be easily available without resorting to only using non-OEM parts, cobbled together tools or tools that are made to do a job they weren’t really designed for, and hit and miss on what procedure to follow because there is no access to the correct manuals.
For Australia is this more problematic? Especially once away from the great SE Capitals. Finding a repairer who may have the basic skills required is one concern. The time taken to find, access and read the repair guides is a cost. The time needed to organise/order parts is another cost. One could suggest based on past experience Australian repairers will be bound to a long supply chain of national, state and regional distribution agreements.
Without some form of undertaking or regulation of parts supply and pricing will we be any better off?
To note I’ve been able in the past to self repair washing machines, dishwashers and microwaves by direct replacement of plug connected components. It has relied on finding suitable online diagnostic support or service manuals. The availability and cost of the spare parts has been the greatest challenge.
Any right to repair IMO will not succeed if the on-cost of the service required approaches the value of a new appliance etc. DIY excepted.
Some of these concerns are because we currently do not have a rigorous right to repair right. Manuals can easily be uploaded to the web, my cousin accesses most of the AC manuals via online portals, to hold that amount of data in house is difficult for a number of reasons, space being one but not only that.
Using someone other than the manufacturer for repairs can be cheaper as when they have the door locked to others they can charge pretty much what they want. When/if we get strong laws around right to repair, we hopefully will see most prices drop as competition with in-house opens up more of those willing to offer the service.
Some EU Governments offer repair vouchers so that goods are repaired rather than disposed of (which creates another issue of land, pollution, and other unwanted outcomes).
