In 2021, the Australian Productivity Commission published its report on the right to repair. The findings were clear: manufacturers were making products unnecessarily difficult to repair, consumers were paying the price, and the regulatory framework needed updating.

Five years later, some things have changed. Others haven’t moved at all. And a few have quietly gotten worse.

What’s Actually Changed

The most tangible progress has been in consumer electronics. Following the Productivity Commission’s recommendations, the Australian Government introduced mandatory repairability scoring for smartphones, laptops, and tablets sold in Australia, effective January 2026.

The scoring system, modelled loosely on France’s indice de reparabilite, rates products from 1 to 10 based on documentation availability, spare part pricing, disassembly difficulty, and software support duration. Retailers are required to display these scores at the point of sale, both online and in-store.

Early data from Choice suggests consumers are noticing. Products with repairability scores above 7 showed 12% higher sales conversion in the first quarter compared to equivalent models scoring below 5. Manufacturers are responding—Samsung and Apple both improved the repairability of their 2026 models compared to 2025, with more modular designs and published repair manuals.

The other significant change is the expansion of the Australian Consumer Law’s protections for independent repairers. Manufacturers can no longer void warranties solely because a product was repaired by a third-party technician, provided the repair was done competently and with appropriate parts. This was technically already the case under existing consumer law, but enforcement was nearly non-existent. The 2025 amendments added specific penalties for warranty-voiding practices, and the ACCC has already taken action against two manufacturers.

What Hasn’t Changed

Agricultural equipment remains the most frustrating case. Farmers across regional Australia still can’t run diagnostics on their own tractors without manufacturer-authorised software. John Deere and other major manufacturers have made concessions in the US market following right-to-repair legislation in several states, but those concessions haven’t automatically extended to Australia.

A farmer in Wagga Wagga who can’t get their header working during harvest doesn’t need a philosophical debate about intellectual property rights. They need access to the diagnostic codes their machine is throwing so a local mechanic—or they themselves—can fix it.

The National Farmers’ Federation has been pushing for agricultural equipment exemptions to digital locks, but progress has been slow. The manufacturers argue that access to diagnostic systems creates safety risks and liability concerns. The farmers argue, reasonably, that they’ve been repairing their own equipment for generations and the digital locks are designed to protect revenue, not safety.

The E-Waste Connection

Australia generates approximately 650,000 tonnes of e-waste annually, with only about 10% formally recycled. Right to repair is directly connected to this problem—products that can be repaired last longer and generate less waste. A UN Global E-waste Monitor report found that improving repairability could reduce global e-waste by 20% within a decade.

Australia’s National Waste Action Plan acknowledges this link but hasn’t implemented specific policies connecting repair rights to waste reduction targets.

The Parts and Knowledge Problem

Having the legal right to repair something isn’t much use without access to parts and repair knowledge. This is where the practical challenges are most acute.

For popular devices—iPhones, Samsung Galaxies, common laptop models—aftermarket parts are widely available and repair guides exist on platforms like iFixit. But for less common products—dishwashers from smaller brands, specific power tool models, industrial equipment—spare parts can be either unavailable or priced at levels that make repair economically irrational.

A replacement control board for a five-year-old dishwasher that originally cost $800 might be priced at $450. At that point, the consumer makes the financially rational decision to buy a new dishwasher, even though repairing the existing one would be environmentally preferable and technically straightforward.

Manufacturers set spare part prices. There’s no regulatory requirement for those prices to bear any relationship to the cost of production. And because many parts are proprietary—designed so only the original part fits—there’s no aftermarket competition to exert downward price pressure.

Where This Goes Next

The EU’s approach offers a template. The European Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, which came into force in 2024, requires manufacturers of certain product categories to make spare parts available for defined periods at reasonable prices. It’s the most comprehensive right-to-repair framework anywhere in the world.

Australia tends to follow the EU on product regulation, with a lag of two to four years. If that pattern holds, expect more detailed repairability requirements for whitegoods, power tools, and potentially vehicles within the next few years.

In the meantime, the repairability scoring system for electronics is a meaningful first step. It gives consumers information they didn’t previously have and creates a market incentive for manufacturers to design repairable products.

The right to repair isn’t just about fixing broken gadgets. It’s about whether consumers actually own the products they buy—or merely license them from manufacturers who retain effective control through design choices, software locks, and parts restrictions.

Five years after the Productivity Commission report, Australia is moving in the right direction. Just not as fast as the growing pile of e-waste would suggest we need to.