Modern vehicles run on software as much as steel. Diagnosing a fault, resetting a system after a repair, or even completing a routine service increasingly depends on data that manufacturers control. Authorised dealer networks get that information as a matter of course. Independent workshops often have to fight for it — through incomplete portals, third-party workarounds, or not at all.
According to the Motor Trade Association, New Zealand has talked about fixing this for more than 20 years, while Australia has already done it. And with a coalition representing the bulk of New Zealand’s independent aftermarket now pushing harder than it has in years, the gap between the two countries is becoming harder to justify.
Auto Channel reported on this campaign in May. A fresh statement from the coalition, released in July, argues that support for reform is building faster than at any point since the campaign began.
The problem, by the numbers
A survey of New Zealand independent repairers, commissioned by the Choice of Repairer Industry Leaders Group, found 48% have been forced to turn away vehicles because they could not access the information, tools or data needed to complete the job. The group says the situation is getting worse, not better.
Every vehicle turned away is a motorist redirected to a dealer network, a longer wait, and one less workshop competing on price. Peter Morton, Chair of the Choice of Repairer Industry Leaders Group and head of Automotive Solutions, frames it plainly: “Without access to the right information, even the best technician can be locked out of the job. When independent repairers are locked out, motorists lose choice — and when motorists lose choice, they pay more.”
The Australian backdrop
As reported in May, Australia’s answer was legislation. Its Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme, in effect since July 2022, has been linked to a 6.7% expansion in industry turnover — an estimated A$2.4 billion a year — and a 40% drop in vehicles turned away for lack of information, across more than 33 brands.
What’s changed since then: Australia is now consulting on a second round of reforms, covering electronic logbooks, wider toolmaker access, and connected-vehicle telematics. New Zealand hasn’t started its first round.
The coalition behind the push
The campaign pushing for change, NZ Choice of Repairer, isn’t a single lobby group. Its board draws on New Zealand’s four largest independent repair networks, its two largest parts and equipment suppliers, its largest vehicle glass consortium, and the New Zealand Automobile Association — alongside the Motor Trade Association, which represents more than 4,000 automotive businesses and has been working to broker a position that independent repairers, dealers, and manufacturers can all live with. The Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association, whose decade-long campaign produced the Australian scheme, is formally advising the New Zealand push.
The ask is specific: a formal government review of how the Australian scheme could be adapted here, covering vehicles sold in New Zealand from 2002 onward, with real-time data access for independent repairers on the same commercial terms dealers already get.
Not a case against dealers
None of this is framed as a fight with manufacturers or franchise networks, and it shouldn’t be read that way. Australia’s scheme operates alongside dealer networks, not against them — it simply requires the same information to be made available to both. The New Zealand proposal carries the same safeguards: a vetting process for who can access safety and security-related data, and commercial terms set on a fair, not free, basis. A workshop operating under a dealer franchise has as much reason to want a stable, well-regulated system as an independent one down the road.
The decision still to be made
New Zealand’s one attempt at legislation, the Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill, tried to cover every consumer good under one framework and was discharged from Parliament in October 2025 after a select committee found it unworkable. The automotive-specific case it left behind was never really in dispute — MPs across the House acknowledged the access problem was real, even while voting down the bill as drafted. National MP Mark Bidois pointed to Australia’s scheme directly as the model to follow, and legal commentators have suggested a future scheme would carry more weight anchored in the Fair Trading Act, where the Commerce Commission has genuine enforcement powers, rather than the Consumer Guarantees Act. The Fair Trading Amendment Bill introduced to Parliament in May 2026 shows that legislative path is available — though its current focus is misleading pricing and scam websites, not vehicle data access.
The ingredients are all there: a working overseas model now in its second phase, an aligned industry position, and cross-party acknowledgement that something needs to change. What’s missing is a government prepared to make it a priority. The coalition’s message this time is that it isn’t waiting quietly for one.
