NZ’s right to fix things edges closer

You may or may not be aware that we increasingly need legislation to protect the right to repair the things we own. This includes ensuring spare parts are available, and if people cannot repair the things they own themselves, they can use independent repairers and are not obliged to use expensive authorised ones. Also, if information, software and diagnostic tools are needed to make the repair, the manufacturer makes that available to the owner (or the independent repairer of the owner’s choice).

The right to repair movement comprises grass roots organisations putting pressure on their governments to enact laws protecting a right to repair. And for obvious reasons, not having the right to repair – and often being actively prevented from doing so – has both a financial and environmental cost.

The movement has grown in prominence around the world. France, UK, Canada, the EU and many states in the US, are proposing and even enacting right to repair laws. Those laws still have their limitations. For example, in the UK only washing machines, dryers, dishwashers, fridges and TVs are covered under right to repair laws. So it does’t, for instance, cover your smart phone or car.

New Zealand is joining the party with the Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill, which is due to have its first reading later this year. The member’s bill, created by Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson, aims to extend the life of goods, keeping resources in circulation longer to reduce waste in landfills.

The Bill does four main things.

First, it would remove the loophole in the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) which allows manufacturers to avoid the CGA’s guarantee of ensuring repair facilities and spare parts are available if they inform the purchaser of a good, sold for the first time in New Zealand of the lack of repair facilities and spare parts. The closure of the loophole is needed as some goods are sold in New Zealand that cannot be repaired if a part breaks.

Second, consumers will have the right to request that suppliers repair goods, which must be repaired within a reasonable time. The Bill accepts that suppliers will not always be in a position to repair goods, but ensures the consumer can have them replaced with identical ones, in some situations get a full refund, or have someone else repair them and require the supplier to pay the reasonable costs of the repair.

Third, if the consumer requests information, software and diagnostic tools necessary for making a repair, the manufacturer must supply them. The need for software and diagnostic tools is growing in importance as software is increasingly embedded in goods: think, for instance, of modern cars.

Fourth, it would prevent manufacturers tying their guarantees to the use of authorised parts and repairers. If a term in the guarantee states that a consumer must not use an unauthorised part and/or go to an unauthorised repairer, that term will be unenforceable.

The Bill is a good first step in creating a right to repair law in New Zealand; however, it won’t provide a complete or comprehensive right to repair framework. A significant limitation is that only goods normally acquired for personal and domestic use would be covered under the Bill. Therefore, the legislation would be of no use to farmers with large tractors and other farming machinery.

Another limitation is that the Bill does not require a change in the design. Most manufacturers deliberately design and manufacture goods that do not last for long, called planned obsolescence. Goods used to last for decades. Now we are expected to accept that appliances like fridges will last only 10 years.

Many manufacturers also intentionally design goods that are difficult to repair. For example, by glueing parts together rather than using screws. Even for goods that use screws, some manufacturers use special tools only authorised repairers have access to. It is possible to design goods that can be taken apart easily to be repaired (and upgraded), such as the Fairphone. The UK’s right to repair law, however, requires that appliances can be taken apart using commonly available tools. That’s what I’d call progress.

Another concern is that consumers must individually go to the Disputes Tribunal or a court to enforce their rights under the CGA. Realistically, no one is going to go to court due to the expense. For manufacturers and suppliers, it is cheaper to pay out the occasional consumer in the Disputes tribunal than to change their business practices.

The exception to this is that under the CGA, the Commerce Commission can take action if consumers’ rights are being misrepresented. It would be useful to allow the commission to take action against all breaches of the CGA, as it can with breaches of the Fair Trading Act 1986.

I should note that, even if the commission were given greater power to enforce the CGA, that would still not magically result in manufacturers and suppliers following the law.

It would, of course, be great if consumers could buy goods they knew were repairable. Like they can in France. France requires manufacturers of certain goods (washing machines, smartphone, TVs, laptops, electric lawnmowers, dishwashers, pressure washers and vacuum cleaners) to provide information about the repairability of a good at the point of sale.

Despite the Bill’s limitations, it is a good step in New Zealand’s path on the right to repair.