Perhaps we need legislation that requires all OEMs and importers to carry spare parts for at least x number of years based on the expected life-time of the piece of equipment. So a fridge might be 15-20 years, a hand-held blender maybe 5 years. For a car, perhaps 20 years. etc. etc.
That would be a massive burden on OEMs (and their supply chain) who’s equipment fails frequently, or has systemic faults. Therefore, one would hope that it would encourage manufacturers to produce equipment that doesn’t fail often, thereby reducing the inventory of parts they need to carry.
It would become a self policing system because OEMs and importers would be less likely to import kit if they are aware of it having problems, so less disposable junk would enter the country, or be manufactured here.
The only concern that that concept woukd be the cost…we as consumer would be paying more for new products and for spare parts. The increase in costs would be due to additional storage and handling, as well as the capital cost invested in the spares and their storage space.
This may have a reverse effect in relation to spares…that being the cost to repair becomes more and less attractive to do, making the products more disposal (thrown away).
Maybe in some respects the ACL solves this probelem as the manufacturer is responsible for defects which occur within a reasonable time within the product’s life. Maybe if the ACL was strengthened to nominate expected product lifes and periods would spuld expect a product to be troubke free, then the risk is pushed back onto the manufacturer rather than the consumer. They can then decide which is the m ost effective way to manage defects under the ACL, either retaining spares of common components or replacing the whole product.
Maybe manufacturers could also provide a parts supply guarantee…like when a spare can be supplied…if not the product is replaced.
In the mid 1990s, then the Chrysler Voyager cam out oen of our clients had a ding where the sliding door would not close…making the vehicle unroadworthy. At the time Chrysler had to source a repalcemwnt door from overseas and the insurer won’t pay the cost to have it airfreighted in…the door took over 6 wekeks to arrive by ship and another week to prepare and fit. After this our client said he was never buying a vehicle witb limited sales as the risks were too great. Maybe a parts supply guarantee would have worked in this case?
But hen again, a parts supply guarantee would push up costs of new and repairs as well.
Isn”t the greater benefit of longer service lives one of reduced impact on the environment?
It’s a difficult point for many to accept.
That paying more for a product upfront to assure it’s future repairability is more important for the environment than bringing the individual cost of living down through lower cost appliances.
If it was a simple answer Australia would have already achieved 100% solar and batteries?
Lowest cost to purchase (immediate costs) as @phb suggests still rule.
I recently had a repair or replace experience that worked out well for me . Was refurbishing my old Nissan E24 Van , circa 1990 . All went well until the distributor decided to give up the ghost .
Phoned around re repairing it and was quoted from $450 - $600 . . I thought that was a bit steep so decided to phone Werribee Nissan my local dealer . Great on the phone but could not help me as they did not carry that part. . Asked for the VIN number of the Van and said would get back to me in an hour . Heard that one before . They usually never phone back .
The phone rung just over an hour later . They had punched the part number into their computer system and no other Nissan dealers had the distributor . My particular Nissan has Hitachi electrics . Their Australian ware house for parts was not holding that part in stock .either .
To cut a long story short Werribee Nissan ordered the part from directly Nissan Japan OEM . It arrived in 4 days and cost $280 . The unit was easy to fit and time . New battery , turned the key and the engine purred and I’m just on $400 better off .
Why are companies not required to provide reasonable repair opportunities, instead of expecting us to simply throw an item away? I recently had a perfectly good washing machine that had a broken control board, and because the manufacturer doesn’t supply replacement boards, I had to throw out the whole washing machine.
Here is another example: Recently had the following email exchange:
ME: “I have Altise AE Digi Tower Elite Series Tower Fan. Out of warranty but not heavily used. Was working perfectly one day, and then the next day - nothing…absolutely nothing. Can’t turn on…no response to any buttons, or remote. (Not my electrical outlet, as I tried different outlets) Help!”
SHRIRO Reply: “Thank you for your enquiry. We wish to advise that the Omega Altise fans come with 2 years replacement warranty. Unfortunately, we do not carry or supply spare parts for these units and therefore cannot be repaired.”
So, it’s cheaper for them to just replace the item (under warranty), while society picks up the ‘externalised cost’ of dealing with the rubbish.
Time for a new campaign, Choice! Manufacturers and retailers should be required to provide ‘reasonable repair opportunities’…An item should be repairable within the first 5 years of its life…if not longer! Also, you might want to ‘review’ out of warranty appliance repair options.
Totally understand the feeling! Something about the crisp purposeful lines without looking too much like a streamlined product from Apple, or the outrageous styling used by Lamborghini?
Likely to last longer than either too!
If only Rams had created 4K TV, and DAB radio?
You can still watch TV on a CRT set if you have a suitable Set Top Box. Apparently?
OK, as far as it goes. I’d prefer “caveat vendor”.
Every retailer is responsible for what they sell. Every product will be either repaired or replaced by the vendor for a reasonable period after sale. At the end of a product’s life, the vendor will ensure recycling. Manufacturers would quickly find that nobody will sell products that aren’t durable, repairable and recyclable.
Five of the six 5 star reviews on Google actually mention Brisbane Handyman Same Day, a different business, whilst the sixth review is actually at the bottom of Brisbane Handyman Same Day website.
Hopefully a great many consumers will be forewarned.
ACCC + Farmers + National Party? = Movement at the Station?
Possibly, although the third ingredient in the above formula is yet to add it’s voice. It is a rather exclusive club though with the more sophisticated farm tractors and machinery found in the $500,000 to $1M price range.
It’s a similar situation to that of independent car repairers vs authorised service centres, albeit on steroids. Hopefully the ACCC will deliver a positive outcome for farmers. It could set a useful precedent for consumers and the automotive industry.
P.S.
It’s worth considering that Tesla is just of protective of it’s vehicle systems and software as the big agricultural machinery manufacturers. Is Musk any more likely to pay attention to the ACCC?
