Seventy-five years ago, the grey Fergie tractor was the backbone of Australian farming. If it stopped running, farmers like Martin Honner – who runs a 1,100ha mixed livestock and cropping farm near Junee in the New South Wales Riverina region – would roll up their sleeves, tinker away, maybe smack it with a hammer and off it would go again.
Like most farmers, Honner is a capable mechanic and his two sons are industry-trained with agricultural machinery from major manufacturers like John Deere and CASE.
But the hammer doesn’t work any more; today’s tractors and harvesters are expensive, GPS-enabled wizards. To replace his header, Honner would outlay over $750,000; newer models can retail for over a million. To replace his air seeder, too, would be upwards of $390,000.
“I’m a lover of machinery that you can keep going without having to buy the biggest and latest just for the sake of advancements in technology,” Honner says.
As farms have moved into the digital age, machinery has become more sophisticated. Onboard computers are standard and the embedded software brings a wealth of productivity in the form of guidance systems, allowing pinpoint accuracy for spraying or sowing crops.
But that software increasingly requires a subscription. John Deere, the largest farm equipment manufacturer in the world, has set a target of earning 10% of its revenue from subscriptions by 2030.
Software is also protected under copyright laws.
Prof Leanne Wiseman specialises in intellectual property law at Griffith University. She is also the chair of the Australian Repair Network and a member of the National Farmers Federation’s right to repair taskforce.
Wiseman says while copyright is a legitimate way to protect the software, the digital locks used by the manufacturers mean that it cannot be accessed for repair. “Once there is an operating system, you can’t just swap a part in and out because the system won’t accept it unless you have the diagnostic software,” she says.
This leaves farmers such as Honner frustrated. Breakdowns, most likely at the critical point of harvest, mean machinery can be out of action for an indeterminable amount of time and tinkering is not encouraged. “With new machinery there is pressure on us not to do our own maintenance – even an oil change, and that’s not brain surgery,” Honner says. “I feel we’ve been dumbed-down.”
Travel to an authorised repairer, often hundreds of kilometres away, costs time and money far beyond the initial breakdown. “A good local mechanic might charge $50 to $120 an hour, but when the dealership sends a mechanic it is in excess of $200 an hour,” Honner says.
‘It needs to be a priority’
This software conundrum also applies to cars, which led to Australia’s first right to repair law for mandatory data sharing in the automotive sector. It requires global manufacturers to share diagnostic data with independent mechanics, allowing them to identify faults and repair them.
“The good thing about the automotive scheme is that the [Australian Competition and Consumer Commission] police it and if there is a breach they have the ability to fine the manufacturers up to $10m, so it doesn’t place the onus on the individual,” Wiseman says.
Agricultural machinery is not covered by right to repair legislation, which is why the modern farmer may have the latest John Deere working in the paddock and the old Fergie in the shed in case of breakdowns.
Most of the technology-reliant equipment that Australians use every day – from machines used in sectors like mining and health to household appliances and mobile phones – is not covered by right to repair laws. But additional issues for agriculture technology are the hefty price tags, the restrictions on on-farm maintenance and the distance to authorised repairers.
Europe and the UK’s right to repair laws cover consumer goods, while in the United States, Colorado law allows repairs to agricultural equipment and wheelchairs. Canada also recently passed laws to facilitate the right to repair.
In Australia, the Productivity Commission says $97m a year in extra GDP would be available if the right to repair was legislated for agriculture alone.
“That was calculated through crop quality losses and price downgrades you get from having to wait for an authorised technician,” Sean Cole says. Cole is the advocacy and rural affairs manager at GrainGrowers and a member of the NFF’s right to repair taskforce.
GrainGrowers and other industry bodies are pursuing the right to repair agricultural machinery that includes access to repair manuals and tools, especially diagnostic equipment, and access to third-party repairers.
In November, Australian federal and state treasurers signed a 10-year intergovernmental agreement on national competition policy, which the federal treasurer, Jim Chalmers, said was “an important first step towards delivering broader ‘right to repair’ reforms – driving down repair costs, increasing business opportunities and reducing wastage by removing barriers to competition for repairs, especially in agriculture and farming”.
Negotiations between the NFF’s right to repair taskforce and the Tractor and Machinery Association in 2024 failed to reach a voluntary agreement, so the farming lobby is pushing for legislation to make data sharing mandatory. It could entail amendments to the Australian Competition Consumer Act, an amendment to the automotive legislation or standalone legislation for agricultural machinery.
GrainGrowers says it is open to discussing all options and welcomes Chalmers’ comments, but is keen to see the detail. “It needs to be a priority, as it is a huge way we can unlock additional GDP, especially in the regions,” Cole says.
Without right to repair legislation, Wiseman warns, the current problems could escalate. “Without a timeframe for regulatory intervention, we will not see open and fair competition in the agricultural machinery service and repair market,” she says.
