STANDARDS AUSTRALIA PROCESSES

Organisations which are responsible for developing and publishing Standards which are intended to be accepted as National and/or International Standards and which are referred to in regulations intended to protect persons who purchase or are exposed to the product or service being supplied should implement processes that are transparent and accessible to consumers. Such public scrutiny is necessary to prevent special interests (including commercial and Government interests) from procuring outcomes that are not in the public interest.

Technical Committees of Standards Australia are comprised of nominees of entities (including Industry Associations, Universities, Regulatory bodies and Government departments). Occasionally there is a “consumer representative”, but this has not been the case in many safety critical subjects. These entities are invited to nominate one or more committee members to a specific Technical Committee at the absolute discretion of Standards Australia. In practice, many of the Technical Committee members or their employer find (or establish) an entity to nominate them, and if the (nameless) gatekeepers of Standards Australia determine that the entity or the person nominated is acceptable to them, that person becomes a committee member representing the nominating entity.

Committees operate under conditions of strict confidentiality, so that “outsiders” have no access to the committee members, and no access to committee documents, agendas or minutes of meetings. When a Technical Committee resolves to publish a Standard or an Amendment to a Standard, that “draft” document is posted for some weeks on the Standards Australia website for “Public Comment”, which is “considered” by the same Technical Committee and a “final draft” for voting is finalised by a majority vote of the Committee, which may decide not to address serious deficiencies that have been identified. The Committee discussions remain confidential, and the “secret” vote of each member is not supposed to be known to the other Committee Members. However, there have been instances where, after members have voted, other members and persons outside the Committee (and not from Standards Australia) have lobbied them to change their vote. This conduct evidences a corruption of the processes of Standards Australia, whereby special interests have improper access to prejudice the vote of individual members (purporting to represent their nominating organization), such access only being available through employees of Standards Australia.

An example of how the processes of Standards Australia have been subverted, resulting in a Standard that is not fit for purpose was submitted to the Senate Enquiry on Non-Conforming Building Products is available Sub standard glass in windows as recorded by Hansard in the linked document “Sub-standard glass in windows” which appears as Submission 67 at https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Non-conforming_products/Submissions.

The Senate Enquiry referenced above published the proceedings as recorded in Hansard, so that the statements by those participating are on the record. Following publication, a Further Submission was submitted and published on the Senate Enquiry website, which consists of the evidence given by various parties together with refutation of many of the statements and claims made by representatives of Standards Australia and of glass industry managers who were complicit in subverting the glass standards. This Submission can be found here.

Another example of how the processes of Standards Australia are subverted is in the public review of the draft of a proposed new or amended Standard. Submissions are invited during the review period (typically some weeks). These are then presented to a (closed and confidential) meeting of the same Committee that developed the draft. However, if a Submission is made which does not suit the interests of those controlling the committee, an employee of Standards Australia will find a bureaucratic “reason” for preventing that Submission from even being discussed by the Committee. A  reason which is often used in these circumstances is that the Submission is outside the Scope of the original proposal to review that Standard. An example of this nefarious conduct is in the review of AS1288 in 2020, when a number of Submissions were made in relation to the value of glass strength, which is critical to the calculation of glass thickness in buildings. These submissions were prevented from being discussed by the Committee, and the glass strength value used in Australia remains dangerously wrong, leading to excess glass breakage. One of the suppressed submissions can be seen here.

In order to provide a level of transparency commensurate with the inalienable interests of the public in ensuring that the development processes of Australian Standards affecting them every day are transparent and accessible, this system needs to be overhauled. Suggestions for desirable improvements to the Standards Australia Committee system are:

1. It is suggested that the identity of entities represented on each Technical Committee, and the names and relevant qualifications and experience of their representatives be published.
2. Individuals with relevant expertise should be able to apply for membership in their own right or through an entity, and in the event of Standards Australia declining such membership, it should provide justification in writing for such a determination. The applicant should have a right of appeal to a truly independent arbitrator.
3. All Technical Committee Documents, agendas, and meeting minutes should be posted on the Standards Australia website for universal access.
4. Each meeting should be live streamed on the internet, with the video clip (or audio recording if the meeting is by teleconference) available through the Standards Australia website for subsequent access by the public. If Committee Members are not prepared to have their submissions and comments subjected to public scrutiny, they should not be participating in the process.
5. Persons and organisations not represented on a Committee should be able to provide submissions through the Committee Secretary for consideration by the Committee, and to attend and contribute to discussions on specific issues with the prior agreement of the Committee Chairperson or Secretary, which permission should not be unreasonably withheld.
6. If there is disagreement among Committee members on significant technical issues, a process needs to be implemented to secure external independent experts to determine a resolution. If the previous steps are implemented, all the information and documents previously available to the Committee, and their discussions will be on the public record, and available to inform the resolution.
7. The management and operations of Standards Australia should be subject to regular review and control by the appropriate Federal Minister, with a mechanism for suggestions and complaints from interested parties to be referred to the Minister for his/her consideration.