Farms & Farm Machinery #401

News
nue
REPAIR
Mods not so hot
Modifications to farm equipment should not be treated in the same way as a farmer’s right to
repair, the Tractor and Machinery Association of Australia says. By Anthony Wingard
A round-table discussion between the National
Farmers’ Federation (NFF), the Tractor and
Machinery Association of Australia (TMA) and
other relevant parties will soon be underway as the
agricultural sector aims to find a solution on farmers’
and repairers’ right to repair.
TMA executive director Gary Northover says
the discussions will aim to achieve a ‘final position’
between all parties, including concerns raised by
the TMA on the matter.
“We’ve begun the process of reaching out to the
NFF, for instance, to develop a bit of a round-table
working discussion around this so that we can
hopefully develop some guidelines which might be
applied to the standards and expectations that the
market is looking for,” says Northover.
“It’s certainly early days but it’s a path that both of
us believe we wish to pursue. So, we look forward
to working the NFF, the Productivity Commission
and also the ACCC [Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission] in just trying to get that
balance right.”
The discussions are set to take place following
reports released by both the Productivity Commission
and ACCC earlier this year, which investigated
the growing number of barriers facing farmers
wanting to repair their own equipment.
Both reports highlighted several challenges
for farmers wishing to complete their own
maintenance themselves or through a thirdparty
machinery repairer.
The ACCC report also called for more
independent competition in the repair market
as well as alterations to the current warranties
issued on agricultural machinery.
In response, the TMA outlined its stance in a
statement of principles that referred mainly to the
need to differentiate between the rights of farmers
or third-party repairers to repair machinery and
their right to modify that machinery.
Modification, as outlined in the TMA’s statement
could refer to: resetting immobiliser systems;
reprogramming electronic processing or engine
control units; changing equipment or engine
18 Farms & Farm Machinery
settings and downloading or accessing the source
code of machines.
Speaking to Farms & Farm Machinery, Northover
says it was imperative to differentiate between
the two.
“We certainly recognise the issue of right to repair
and we do support farmers’ ability to maintain and
repair their own equipment,” he says.
“There are a couple of key issues. One is the
difference between the right to repair and the right
to modify.
“We’ve issued some statement of principles that
we think is a starting point on that road to highlight
the sort of things we think third party repairers
ought to be able to do under the right to repair and
the things that may fall under the right to modify.
“That was part of our submission to the ACCC,
but we felt that was a distinction that needed to
be made.”
In relation to the right to modify in the Australian
agricultural machinery industry, however, the
ACCC report explicitly states: “We have not received
evidence indicating that this practice is widespread,
or that it is a significant motivation for independent
repairers.”
That said, it did confirm some submissions had
raised concerns about the increased possibility
of software modification should independent
repairers have access to diagnostic software and
other technical data.
That notion has been refuted by the TMA, which
suggests the practice of modification by third-party
repairers is in fact widespread and was the main
reason why it objected to recommendations.
“It is prevalent and we see many examples where
engines are being chipped to perform beyond the
stated capacity. If you look at what is happening
elsewhere in the world as well, this is not just an
isolated example,” says Northover.
“Machines being chipped can mean they perform
above their stated capacity, involving sometimes
disengaging the environmental management
equipment, [which] can lead to safety concerns as
far as we are concerned.
“So, while the ACCC might not have called out the
right to modify as a risk as such, we know that it is.
Our members are conscious of their obligations to
ensure that machines are operated safely.”
DEALER CONCERNS
Northover also raised several other concerns
relating to right to repair and right to modify, such
as the level of training required to perform such
maintenance.
Currently, while specific training and experience
varies between manufacturers, technicians are
required to at least complete specific vocational
TAFE courses that are available in many regions
across the country. Bigger manufacturing brands
also invest in factory-based training for the technicians
as well as sophisticated training departments
in dealerships.
Northover says a shortage of technical labour
in regions and the economic role of the dealer
across the country should also be considered
when discussing the right to repair.
“Walking down the path to right to repair, we
just want to make sure the industry understands
the standards necessary to deliver the minimum
quality of service and make sure the machines
are performing satisfactorily and it doesn’t lead to
knock-on consequences down the track,” he says.
“When the third-party repairer isn’t up to the task,
so to speak, the cost is then up to the customer.
“I know some examples I have heard recently of
only half of positions were advertised last year got
filled and if you apply that across the industry, there
is a distinct shortage of technical labour out there.
“I think the thing to consider as part of all of this
is the role the dealer plays. The dealer has invested
a lot of money in developing their businesses.
In many instances, they are probably the biggest
employer in most of the regional towns that they
are in.”
The Productivity Commission is set to hand down
its final report to the federal government by October
29, including a number of recommendations for the
future of agricultural machinery in Australia.