Skip to main content
Article
Shane Rattenbury, the Productivity Commission, and the Right to Repair: Intellectual Property, Consumer Rights, and Sustainable Development in Australia
Berkeley Technology Law Journal (2023)
  • Matthew Rimmer, Queensland University of Technology
Abstract
This Article tells the story of the fight for the right to repair in Australia. It is intended to complement comparative research elsewhere, looking at the right to repair in the United States and Canada; the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the European Union; and other jurisdictions, such as South Africa. Part II of this paper considers the politics of the right to repair in Australia. It explains how Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury has sparked a larger law reform inquiry by the Productivity Commission into the right to repair. It highlights how Australia is particularly promising in terms of law reform – due to an unusual consensus amongst the major political parties across the usual divides. Part III focuses on the debate over intellectual property and the right to repair in Australia, and the recommendations of the Productivity Commission. It argues that there needs to be more than just copyright law reform; there should be matching reforms in designs law, trade mark law, patent law, trade secrets, and data protection. Part IV considers the recommendations of the Productivity Commission regarding consumer law and competition policy. It highlights the need for further law enforcement action to protect the right to repair. Part V explores the discussion about the right to repair in the context of sustainable development–looking at submissions on e-waste, the circular economy, and sustainable development. It contends that there should be greater law reform in these areas (going well beyond the limited recommendations of the Productivity Commission in this area). Part VI concludes by noting that the Productivity Commission has asked for action in particular markets in respect of automobiles, agricultural machinery, and tablets. The Article calls for the Australian Parliament to go further and recognise a more broadly based right to repair. Such a recognition will require a holistic approach, involving reforms to intellectual property laws, consumer rights and competition policy, and regulation of the environment and sustainable development. It maintains that it is necessary that the jurisdiction of Australia keep pace on the right to repair with its comparative partners. 
Keywords
  • intellectual property,
  • consumer law,
  • competition policy,
  • e-waste,
  • product design,
  • planned obsolescence,
  • the right to repair,
  • productivity commission,
  • Australian politics
Publication Date
June 20, 2023
Publisher Statement
Part of The Emergent Right to Repair Symposium https://www.law.berkeley.edu/research/bclt/bcltevents/the-emergent-right-to-repair/

26th Annual BCLT/BTLJ Symposium
 
Co-sponsored by the
Berkeley Center for Law & Technology and the
Spangenberg Center for Law, Technology and the Arts at Case Western Reserve University
 
April 22 & 29, 2022
Virtual

In years past, consumers didn’t think twice about taking a broken car or toaster to a local repair shop or even fixing it themselves. But with today’s software-enabled products, consumers can no longer take those options for granted. In response to legal and technological restrictions, a growing movement advocating a right to repair has emerged, despite pushback from some quarters.
The right to repair is at the center of a key policy debate. The Biden Administration and a unanimous FTC recently voiced support for competition and consumer choice in repair markets. Legislation under consideration in dozens of states would facilitate consumer and third-party repair. And regulators around the world have begun to embrace the repair agenda. But manufacturers and device makers remain skeptical of an unfettered right to repair, citing concerns over intellectual property rights, reliability, security, and lost revenue.
This symposium will consider the complex, overlapping set of policy questions at the center of the repair debate. How do restrictions on repair, or their elimination, affect competition? How might policymakers resolve potential tensions between the right to repair and the intellectual property rights of device makers? Would the consumer benefits of open repair markets outweigh their risks? And what legislative solutions or other policy interventions are best-suited to address these questions?
Citation Information
Matthew Rimmer. "Shane Rattenbury, the Productivity Commission, and the Right to Repair: Intellectual Property, Consumer Rights, and Sustainable Development in Australia" Berkeley Technology Law Journal Vol. 37 Iss. 3 (2023) p. 989 - 1056
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/matthew_rimmer/401/