electricalforum.nz

4.5.2.3.4 (a) Only recessed luminaires of Classes IC-F, IC, CA80 or CA135, which
are compliant with AS/NZS 60598.2.2, including NZ only
Amendment A, shall be installed in residential buildings. (See
Clause 4.5.2.3.1(i).)

Does this make IC-4 and CA90 lights technically non compliant for domestic use? Even though I believe they are just updated versions on IC-F and CA80

I'll let someone else go into the technicalities ...
But this has been corrected with amendment 1 of 3000:2018 AFAIK.

But I've noted that some recessed lights marked as IC-4 are also coming with IC-F stickers to put over the label, so they comply with the 3000:2007A2 wording. So it must be backward compatible at least.

Yeah I noticed the exception in 2018 version

I mean I'm sure using IC-4 and CA90 is probably fine but just curious if it's non-compliant on the technicality

Yes; the fact that this clause of cited edition specifies classes of luminaire compliant to a specific edition of the product Standard makes use of any the different classes set by the later edition of 60958.2.2. technically non-compliant with ESRs. Unless they are dual-tested & dual-marked, as many are.

The differences in the classifications between the NZ-only ones that were developed first, and the later AS/NZS ones, is more than simply the names and symbols.
For example the temperature withstand values required for the BTI are slightly different. Also some of the testing required to be deemed compliant.
But the differences are not huge.
Where a product was already in production (having been tested to the NZ-only) and has then been tested to the later AS/NZS as well; it can be sold with both markings.
New products can be put through both lots of testing.
Dual testing / marking allows the same product to be sold both sides of the Tasman
But when we install it, we have to ensure that it has the NZ-only classification markings actually on it.

One of several areas where following the 2018 edition (with or without amendment) can lead to technical non-compliance with ESRs;
until ESRs are amended to update Schedule 2.

Does anyone know of a source of these recessed lights that will take a GU10 LED bulb? Seems unfair that we'd fit sealed units with a 25000hr (8.5yrs) expectation and then have to biff the complete thing and charge the customer for a callout instead of just replacing the bulb.

There are GU10 LEDs. They weren't cheap last time I bought some. Probably 3/4 of the price of a whole integrated fitting.
Considering that half the time it's the driver that's failed, a homeowner might go out and buy GU10 LEDs, replace them only to have them still not work, or be destroyed by a faulty driver?
A capable homeowners could always replace a plug in integrated fitting themselves, with 2 minutes of training.

True except that the GU10 LED bulbs are 230v and have the drivers built in. So if either the LEDs or the driver dies, replacing the GU10 tube fixes it.

Chances of being able to obtain a matching fittings when one out of a set fails are slim; even if the originals are from a reputable brand rather than via the retail lighting chains.
I believe the days of installing domestic lighting for "life of building" are over. People want to change their decor regularly, and that includes the lights.
I understand the trend in Oz is to install surface sockets and plug in the recessed lights; and there's an issue arising with people installing only a single socket instead of 1-per-light; and using EPODs etc to create a mare's nest of semi-permanent flex. I expect a new rule to prohibit this practice.

My problem with owners replacing plug-in recessed luminaires is if the replacements are a lower classification, creating compliance issues with clearances and covering by BTI, and so creating a fire hazard.

Yes it's a shame that the likes of GU10's are available both as an LED and a 50w Halogen.