@PhilT certainly as far as the consumer is concerned! I worked around Standards for over 40 years and thought I had a pretty good understanding of my professional responsibilities but never did I think they could affect me as a Consumer.
1 Like
Hi @mark_m, thanks for the feed back on pools & helmets. How do I relay that to my neighbour three doors up? I guess thatâs my point. Your correct that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but how can consumer awareness be raised on all legislative consumer issues, not just pools & helmets?
1 Like
Thatâs a much broader need than the topic initially proposed re free access to standards. Is there a solution?
My observation drawing on the prior discussion and ideas of others, it needs more from government. Potentially along the lines of Consumer Guides. Resources available freely online and in hard copy that reproduce the content in a common format, that is relatable and effective communication. There are currently existing examples of documents that attempt this mostly at state level. Of those I have referenced the quality varies and there are numerous gaps.
IE A solution could bring the relevant content from the standards into published government documents, and leave the consumer irrelevant to the standard. It is one way to manage the issues of relevance, interpretation, complexity and licensing.
Awareness can be improved if the necessary resources are made accessible, and all kept in one place. Not my current observation, unless you consider â.govâ one place?
What would you suggest?
What ever the way forward, if there is one that has a consensus, it will need consumer support/interest and to be encouraged by organisations such as Choice.
Iâm fed up with extortionately greedy companies. Itâs a corporate disease imported from the USA ⊠the USA equivalent of the coronavirus pandemic crippling the world. The Australian Government should follow NZâs lead and just take standards publishing and distribution back in-house.
2 Likes
Challenging, but if you get on well with them, maybe over a beer slip in the Victorian requirements, which are available here:
Iâm not sure what the landscape looked like pre SIA Global, but from what I can see they gained exclusive publishing rights for 20 years starting 2003. The model of limited access for personal use through libraries worked for 13 years.
My take is they are trying to squeeze all they can get out of the deal in the final 1/3 term of agreement (hence my query in OP re Choiceâs sub costs). It looks like the relationship between SIA and SA is straining.
4 Likes
Yes, we need our government to do this.
4 Likes
Standards New Zealand is a business unit of a government department. A select number of NZ community relevant Standards are available for free, although their release has been paid for or sponsored.
There is conditional free/public access to NZ, joint AS/NZ and some International (ISO) Standards.
Standards Australia has always been an independent business. Is the suggestion the Government purchase Standards Australia, which is a not for profit organisation?
The licensed distribution of all standards accessible from Standards Australia is separate, IE SAI Global as previously mentioned in this topic.
Is the suggestion the Australian Government should purchase SAI Global? One complication, other than for Standards whose rights are wholly owned by SA, are Standards with related content or licensing from other standards organisations. It might be that the majority of standards of Australian community interest are not affected. Although many are now based on OS standards, and may have restricted access as a condition, unless paid for.
It may be useful to all interested to have a reliable assessment of what needs to be done if the current situation is to be remedied. Preferably by those with good knowledge of both SA and SAI Global. There is a financial cost at the end, whether government funds conditional access or dips its toe into ownership.
1 Like
The obvious move now would be for government to step in and ensure that all rights revert to public ownership at the end of the deal. Australia is not New Zealand, so the details will differ, but the outcome must be free access.
1 Like
I thought that may have been the case, if it wasnât, many Australian Standards could be accessible free through the NZ agency.
The other issue with Australian Standards is that they are very much produced for business to achieve the goals set out in the standard. While an individual (mums and dads) may have interest in seeing what a particular standard says, individuals (mums and dads) are not required to abide by a particular standard.
If the government took over SAI, it would be âniceâ to be able to get them free. Getting them free would also apply to businesses where their profits are based on meeting the particular AS requirements (as their employees would be able to register for free standards as a individual even if businesses were required to pay for them). Some would do the right thing and pay for them, but many wouldnât as it it a way to maximise profits. Should the taxpayer be allowing business to get standards free at the taxpayers expense so that they can maximise their profits, I hardly think so as the taxpayers monies would be better spent on education, health etc.
There is an offset missing in that assumption. If a business has the cost it builds that into the price to the customer. If you are equating taxpayer = PAYE consumer the cost of AS access is ultimately borne by the consumer through cost of goods and services or tax.
At the moment, according to the linked article above re takeover by HK based equity company, the profits from publishing I assume are going OS. Interesting the access model changed about the time of the takeover.
2 Likes
The cost exists. The customer/taxpayer ultimately pays. At present, we donât have access to the information. That should change.
1 Like
is the heart of the discussion in this thread, because without access to the current standard documentation the user cannot do what they need to do.
Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.
This applies from bicycle helmets to pool fences to bidets to cots to pyjamas etc etc etc - all the things and services that the consumer has to consider the legality of before purchasing.
1 Like
This is key to the discussion, the users are businesses (from sole traders to big business) and not mums and dads or for domestic purposes.
Business should possibly pay for AS as AS allows them to operate, produce products or meet standards to generate a profit.
Individuals donât need standards for personal or non-business usesâŠor where they do, such a pool fencing, the statutory authority produces its own guidelines which are are used for enforcement.
While looking at AS may be interesting, they in reality are not required for non-business purposes.
The consumer only needs to purchase AS certified and labelled items such as helmets as required by law. The purchaser needs to only have the product labelled and not need to understand what the product test results are etcâŠonly that it complies through labelling.
An user doesnât need to know the test regime and pass criteria for helmets or other products, unless they wish to start a business making AS certified products.
1 Like
Honest question @phb, when someone is prosecuted for breaching a standard is it the business or the consumer? The consumer is, as I understand it, first in the firing line, is he not? As Is often the liberal position ignorance is no defence. Would it be inappropriate to give those consumers who were interested and equipped access to their responsibilities? That a consumer might ultimately be able to defer to a business responsibility does not absolve them, case department.
2 Likes
As outlined above, a consumer doesnât need to comply with an AS, businesses do when they are mandatory. A consumer could be prosecuted say for wearing a colander for a motorcycle helmet because it doesnât comply with the AS, but a consumer responsibility is not to find anything that can be worn and argue it compliesâŠbut to wear a AS labelled helmet. Likewise for baby capsules/seats etc,
1 Like
Lets use a building project as an example. A consumer engages a âmaster companyâ, insured, registered, licensed. Assume for this argument there are some things like AS5113 (cladding) that must conform. A few years later it is discovered the master company did not use approved cladding or perhaps it was counterfeit. Who pays? No need to answer as the press and courts continue to cover it, and it has not been the builder nor the certifiers so far.
How many owners would check all the standards required and then confirm the master company adhered to them? That is not the point.Is that their job - I donât think so. How about the certifiers? That is another topic since they are compromised in most of our jurisdictions.
In fact, in the abcd advisory note regarding cladding it states âPersons rely upon this publication entirely at their own risk and must take responsibility for assessing the relevance and accuracy of the information in relation to their particular circumstances.â
There a many reasons to make things opaque but only one to make them transparent. The latter is âthere really is nothing to hideâ. Supporting open source software while defending keeping AS out of the laymanâs hands seems inconsistent, if nothing.
1 Like
A consumer (certifier) only needs, if they have knowledge of building requirements and are concerned, to check the installed product is AS certified from information produced by the manufacturer of the cladding. This is no different to say a bike helmetâŠwhere a helmet wearer needs to wear AS labelled helmet.
Looking at the AS a consumer wonât be able to assess whether the cladding complies. For a consumer to determine whether cladding complies, the consumer would need to set up their own testing laboratory (possibly NATA standard) to test the cladding. If a consumer was unsure, they should either ask the manufacturer for test results of compliance or send a sample to a NATA laboratory and request testing compliance. The NATA lab will have the AS and advise in a report if it complies or not.
Builders and/or certifiers cutting corners under Building legislation or codes shouldnât be confused with AS compliance. Those who are shonky may not care about materials or work quality which is a matter for resolution under relevant laws⊠not under an AS. AS is not a legal document or has enforceable processes or provision/requirements with the AS.
It is also the role of a certifier to check building complies with relevant approvals, codes and standards as a certifier has a building background and knows what these look like when undertaken. Unless an average consumer has the same level of training and experience, they wouldnât be able to assess building work compliance with any mandatory requirement.
I personally think having free access to AS would be interesting, but not necessary to function within the society we live.
1 Like
A response would be Opal Towers and all the other buildings regarding who is ultimately responsible. Make those who should be responsible responsible, no administration or bankruptcies allowed, make an insurance pool that is able to fall back on the responsible parties for recompense, bar those responsible for ever being in the industry again if found guilty of wilfully doing the wrong thing, add some prison time to make the point for not doing the right things, and I am with you that it becomes irrelevant in practice.
Necessary. no. But supporting opaqueness through a high price per view for even once-off curiosity because we laymen are not able to comprehend (defined broadly)? We will remain with different opinions even though at a certain level we apparently agree.
1 Like
They areâŠbut confusing deficient certification system with access to AS is inappropriate. They are two separate issues.
In relation to Opal and many other multiple dwelling buildings, consumers even if they had building qualifications/training and knew what they were doing, they canât access the building during construction to carry out their own compliance inspection. Much of what needs inspection is under the âdecorationâ layer present at the building finalisation.
EDIT: A major disadvantage of having free access to as is that is may encourage more DIYs to do illegal building (inc. electrical, plumbing etc) work as they would be able to access some of the specific AS which would otherwise be the case. This means that any future buyers of the dwelling or users would need to be aware of risks due to shoddy DIY renovations/building work.
1 Like
