NEARLY 40 submissions made to the recent South Australian Parliamentary Inquiry into warranty and safety issues surrounding farm machinery has seen farmers and contractors highlight their dissatisfaction with many suppliers.
Economics and Finance Committee spokesman Tony Piccolo, the Member for Light, who also initiated the inquiry, said “some pretty scathing submissions” demonstrated the need for many machinery manufacturers to lift their game, slamming their behaviour and service performance.
The report, titled Consumer Protection for Farmers: Reaping a Fair Harvest, documented:
- A seven month delay in achieving unsatisfactory repairs to a $297,000 mechanised grape harvester with it unable to pick grapes without a major breakdown.
- Early and repeated mechanical failures on the purchase of two new tractors ($430,000) and a baler ($156,000) which continued outside their warranty window.
- A $43,000 tractor plagued by “multiple faults” during its first 10 hours of use that extended beyond warranty, requiring the owner pay for subsequent repairs.
The Committee’s focus on the whole issue of warranty demonstrated the complexity of this contentious issue, drawing attention to the number of faults that surfaced “just out of warranty,” in turn leading to a raft of disputes between farmers and manufacturers and/or dealers.
As well, the inquiry heard of the recurring issue of machinery failing during harvesting/seeding periods and the resultant financial hardship suffered by farmers and contractors who then had to temporarily hire equipment.
Other submissions criticised the “over technical” nature of modern machinery when compared with older models.
Interestingly, the South Australian Farmers Federation’s evidence to the South Australian Parliamentary Inquiry drew attention to the problems facing the farming sector should they seek to take legal action.
It said the sheer scale of some foreign equipment companies gave little hope of farmers and contractors out-muscling the “deep pockets” of these “absolutely enormous” firms in courtroom situations.
The nation’s peak lobby group, the Tractor and Machinery Association of Australia (TMA), acknowledged the majority of farm machinery supplied for use in this country was made overseas.
The TMA said it made no judgment on whether the nature of the market had affected the reliability of the equipment, or the service standards relating to that equipment - other than to suggest the “highly competitive nature of the market for agricultural equipment, both in Australia and overseas,” had a beneficial effect on customer service:
“In Australia, competition between manufacturers to provide superior customer service through their dealer networks is intense,” the TMA’s submission said.
Meanwhile, the Member for Light, Tony Piccolo, said the Inquiry’s key recommendation was for the creation of alternative dispute resolution services for agriculture.
Although the SA Parliament’s Economics and Finance Committee is in favour of a voluntary alternative industry-based dispute resolution scheme, it believes its decisions should be binding and, if necessary, given statutory backing.
”Farmers are no different to other consumers when having these (warranty) issues resolved and there is place for an industry-based dispute resolution mechanism - but within a statutory framework,” Mr Piccolo said.
Email a friend