Designers are trained to create products, environments and experiences that simply and elegantly serve their purpose. Longevity and repairability are natural outcomes of good design. However, others in the supply chain – such as manufacturers and retailers – often demand and gain from planned obsolescence and restricted repairability. In addition to the role that designers can play in creating products that are able to be repaired, the DIA envisages a role for designers in the repair market. For example, where a manufacturer chooses not to retail component parts (through a policy of replace rather than repair) designers could design replacement parts that can be easily and cheaply manufactured on demand e.g. through 3D printing.

This might particularly suit product housing or mechanical parts where appropriate materials can be used in small scale production. It would require new pricing models in order to be feasible but contemporary production methods and changing community attitudes make this more possible than in the past. This role differs from existing non-licensed activity in two ways: the scale of production would be low numbers and on-demand and the designer would not necessarily be linked to or control the manufacture of the parts, and the service would be for parts that are otherwise not available individually. It would deliver high quality professional design at a scale currently served by hobbyists. The existing spare parts defence in the Designs Act 2003 could cover this role but this has not been tested.

In some repairs markets, e.g. cars, the high prices for licensed ‘genuine’ parts provide an incentive for other manufacturers to create alternative replacement parts. This provides choice of parts for car owners in some instances but insurers tend to dictate outcomes in terms of repair versus replace. The market is similar for common household goods. The role of designers in these secondary markets is invisible and there is no incentive or requirement for their work to be acknowledged.

As a result, IP protections are generally viewed by the community as instruments of market protection for large organisations rather than a legitimate means of protecting creativity. If the work of designers was better understood and valued then the dynamics of many markets would shift to allow greater repairability. The current settings of the Designs Act are an impediment to this. Provisions such as copyright can also obstruct repair. For example, copyright on schematics or service manuals may prevent this information being available to repairers or users which can increase the risk and difficulty of repair.

The DIA supports actions and reforms to product design standards, product information and labelling, as well as laws prohibiting planned product obsolescence. Australia would do well to consider measures such as the durability index used in France and the EU-wide Eco design Directive for appliances which reflect a strong circular design approach that serves to benefit the consumer, the environment and progressive manufacturers and retailers, without jeopardising the IP of designers.

Denise Ryan
DIA Senior Policy Adviser