Submission to the Productivity Commission Draft Report:'Right to Repair'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Centre for a Waste-Free World supports the Productivity Commission’s examination of the ‘right to repair’ and the draft recommendations that have followed from its inquiry. We understand that this inquiry into the right to repair is being undertaken in conjunction with other actions by the Federal Government in support of the circular economy, including: the Treasury’s proposed scheme for the mandatory sharing of car repair information, the recent review of the Product Stewardship Act 2011(Cth), and the ACCC’s 2020 enquiry into agricultural machinery and the after-sales market (which includes examination of an agricultural right to repair). This inquiry also coincides with significant ongoing US policy developments on the ‘right to repair’<br/><br/>The Centre broadly supports the reform recommendations made by the Commission and believes that the adoption of these recommendations, via legislative changes and supporting frameworks, would positive contribute to slowing the consumption of resources/materials in line with the aim of a circular economy. We also support the Productivity Commission’s recognition of the fact that various factors currently restrict the ability and capacity of citizen- consumers to utilise ‘repair’ options. For example, corporate practices, design considerations, and lack of infrastructure and knowledge. The Productivity Commission subsequently acknowledges that enabling the right to repair is multi-faceted, requiring various regulatory, cultural and economic changes. We agree that progress towards a right to repair engages consumer and competition law, intellectual property, product design, labelling standards, and environmental and resource management. We also agree that Australia needs to implement appropriate legislative and policy responses that aim to generate, support and encourage the right to repair generally, and the right for consumers to access domestic repair services specifically. The implementation of such laws would bring Australia more in line with the US, EU and Canada’s approaches to the right to repair. Finally, we acknowledge that expanding the domestic repair market could bring about substantial social benefits, including job-creation, and overall support a green recovery for the Australian economy as it emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".