Government will move on right to repair legislation in new zealand.

[soylentgreen]

We have a right to repair what we own. Yes or no?

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/poli...right-to-repair-legislation-david-parker.html

Businesses may soon be legally bound to ensure Kiwis can repair old devices and appliances instead of replacing them, Environment Minister David Parker has indicate

While there is no detail on proposed legislation yet, the 'right to repair' generally refers to legal protections which force companies to maintain supply of parts for older products and allows customers to choose who provides their repairs.
In New Zealand, Section 12 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 does provide some protection by ensuring repairs, replacements or refunds when goods are faulty, as well as setting minimum guarantees for all products and services.

However companies are able to exploit a loophole elsewhere in the act, under Section 42, which states: "Section 12 does not apply where reasonable action is taken to notify the consumer who first acquires the goods… that the manufacturer does not undertake repair facilities and parts will be available for those goods."

Essentially this means that the Act's protections do not apply if customers are told there are no parts or repair facilities available at point of purchase.

Right to repair movements have gathered steam internationally as planned obsolescence - intentionally allowing products to become unusable within a set timeframe - has become standard across many industries.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

We have a right to repair what we own. Yes or no?

You can always repair items you own. It is always morally correct.

 

[ttwtt78640]

We have a right to repair what we own. Yes or no?

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/poli...right-to-repair-legislation-david-parker.html

How, exactly, can we discuss a proposed law with “no detail”?

What, exactly, is a covered “device” or “appliance”?

Making this apply to “old” things seems to be ridiculous - amounting to an ex post facto law.

I would assume that the law would apply only to new products, yet it would be very hard (if not impossible) to enforce on any imported products.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You can always repair items you own. It is always morally correct.

True, but can you demand that someone else supply the required parts?

 

[Nomad4Ever]

True, but can you demand that someone else supply the required parts?

Well I know you complained about not knowing the specifics of the law, but at least in the US proposed right to repair laws usually have to do with banning things like Apple making it intentionally difficult to repair their devices outside of official Apple stores.

 

[soylentgreen]

You can always repair items you own. It is always morally correct.

Unfortunately it is just not possible because of the way things are made. We are a throw away society unless business is forced to changed. And it has to be force because why would a business volunteer to give up self perpetuating profit?

This is also a dig at the way some americans think about rights. In new zealand we have an uncodified constitution. So when the minister says making it a right, he means a constitutional right. Which business must conform to.

This is a reason why i would prefer to live in a country with an uncodified constitution than one with a codified constitution. Not necessarily america but any country.

 

[soylentgreen]

How, exactly, can we discuss a proposed law with “no detail”?

What, exactly, is a covered “device” or “appliance”?

Making this apply to “old” things seems to be ridiculous - amounting to an ex post facto law.

I would assume that the law would apply only to new products, yet it would be very hard (if not impossible) to enforce on any imported products.

The devil is in the details, correct. But the concept behind changing manufacturing goods as a throw away item compared to companies providing spare parts and the ability to repair and restore is still worth discussion.

The article did focus on cell phones as one of the biggest culprits in the throw away industry.

The trouble with a throw away economy is that the phone you bought a few months ago is now an old thing because it got updated.

I would question the level of difficulty because it would be balanced on a phone company loosing an entire country worth of sales and profit or simply releasing the information necessary to repair their products. And phone companies operate under the pressure of competition. It is not as if the country will suffer from a lack of phones from other companies that do agree.

True, but can you demand that someone else supply the required parts?

The problem is that the company making a product reserves the right to repair all of its products. And reserves the right to say whether the fault is theirs or yours and whether they will repair or not. Despite any warranty they give there is the loophole of them just saying we no longer make the part so we no longer repair.

The intention of the right to repair is that if companies release manuals and spare parts then that opens the opportunity for some people to start their own business in repairing things. Result, more jobs, more people owning their own businesses, more competition leading to better prices and improved products.

And yes you can demand. A business is not kingdom with its own rights. I wonder if you are old enough to remember a very old adage, "the customer is always right."

 

[bomberfox]

Im against planned obsolescence though sometimes its good to move on from producing really old parts.

 

[bomberfox]

I avoid old laminators like the plague. They nearly destroyed any joy i had in my job.