Right-to-repair bill is well-intentioned but it’s a lemon

Friday, 2 May 2025

A publicity still from the movie The World’s Fastest Indian, about pioneering motorcycle racer Burt Munro; his feats exemplifed the DIY, No.8 wire approach Kiwis have long prided themselves on, writes Lee Marshall.

Lee Marshall is chief executive of the Motor Trade Association.

OPINION: Few things speak to our national identity more than the do-it-yourself, No.8 wire mentality.

In the automotive sector, that’s fuelled by homespun heroes such as Burt Munro of World’s Fastest Indian fame, and pioneering motorcycle designer John Britten.

I was reminded about this recently when speaking before Parliament’s select committee looking at the Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill.

One committee member suggested the DIY in our DNA stood us in good stead when it came to repairing vehicles and would continue to do so.

True, to a point. Every motorist should be able to perform basic checks and maintenance on their vehicle.

But while thousands of amateur mechanics might be able to tinker under the bonnet of vehicles made well into the 2000s, vehicles made in the last five years are a whole different ballgame.

A mistake under the bonnet of a 1970s Falcon is unlikely to be fatal; trying to change the battery in your EV could well be.

Cheap household electrical items are lined up for a second life; but they could become a thing of the past if right-to-repair requirements are written into law, argues Lee Marshall.

Modern vehicles are filled with complex and software dependent systems that should only be touched by someone trained and skilled.

Just think of the technologies that have become commonplace on vehicles in the past five years. From radar cruise control, to sensors and cameras to anticipate danger, warn of obstacles, detect lane positioning, or read signs. Not to mention autonomous driving systems and automatic braking.

The prevalence of these systems will only grow. That’s one reason why, despite being well intentioned, the proposed “right to repair” legislation is a lemon.

Okay, the Green Party should be commended for the bill, which nobly aims to reduce landfill. However, it was seemingly written with small household electronics in mind.

A car isn’t a toaster. Vehicles can and do get fixed, parts are available, and good recycling systems and product stewardship schemes are already in place for nigh-on every part of a vehicle.

The scenario envisaged by backers of the right-to-repair bill: household appliances which can be easily repaired, rather than ditched.

A one-size-fits-all approach won’t work.

The bill is touted as a win for the consumer – catering directly to that DIY mentality, of fixing stuff yourself rather than being at the mercy of a manufacturer or distributor. But actually, the consumer would ultimately be the loser.

As drafted, it would cause major disruptions in our small new vehicle market, and make it near impossible for the used import market to operate – possibly forced to provide information and parts they don’t have and can’t access.

Translation: very few importers of vehicles could meet the obligations and we end up with a market with less competition, higher costs to serve – and ultimately higher prices for consumers.

Back to toasters. The intention of the bill is that Kmart would hold parts for a $10 model. The reality is they simply won’t sell it, and the cheapest toaster in the market will now be $60. Good intentions, bad outcome.

And the same would apply to vehicles, if not so extreme. We are, globally, a micro-market that accounts for scarcely over 0.1% of new vehicle sales.

But there is substance to the call. In the world of vehicle repair, this conversation has been simmering in the background for more than 20 years, with non-brand-affiliated repairers calling for vehicle manufacturers to make repair information, parts and tools available to those suitably qualified.

MTA has been working in the background to broker an industry-wide solution, but it’s a polarising subject.

General and collision repairers would say this is about ensuring consumers can choose where to have their car fixed and enabling fairer competition.

From a car manufacturer’s perspective, it’s about ensuring vehicles are correctly and safely repaired by technicians who are trained to understand the product, brand reputation, and protecting their intellectual property.

Both perspectives are valid. The challenge is to find a middle ground.

In the meantime, well-intentioned as it may be, we’ll be hoping this Right to Repair Bill is recycled into something bespoke to industry.