access and pricing of Australian Standards

If you are interested in the distribution and therefore pricing of Australian Standards, you can comment on a discussion paper here, until

29/7/2019:
formatting link

Here is some background:

formatting link

I went to one of the "public consultations" about distribution (and so price) of Australian Standards.

A General Manager from Standards Australia told us that (paraphrased) there's no point allowing the public to access standards, because they wouldn't understand them. He used the example of Diesel engines for boats - the public wouldn't understand how an engine works so they shouldn't be reading the standards about them.

Also he used the metaphor that standards are "tools of trade", "like a surgeon's scalpel" and should not be available to the public because just being able to read the electrical or gasfitting rules would "embolden" people to do wiring and gasfitting work without a license. Fortunately the fellow from Standards Australia does not influence distribution of scalpels - I find that a Swann-Morton handle with a 10A blade, available at any good artists' shop, is very handy for modifying prototype circuit boards. And in spite of posessing this marvel of sharpness, it never occurred to me to test my beginner's luck and have a go at some amateur surgery.

(By the same logic, we could fix the problem of people driving cars without a license, by putting the road rules behind a very expensive paywall, so people without a license don't get "emboldened" to drive cars.)

The WA parliament's delegated legislation committee said: "We believe that universal free access to Australian Standards should be a right enjoyed by the Australian people, by businesses, by governments, by representative groups and by academic institutions.? https://t.co/xXtzpVo0Il If you look up the interview transcripts from that investigation they are quite revealing also.

I'm not sure that putting in a submission will have much effect, but at least that part of their website is free of charge!

Reply to
Chris Jones
Loading thread data ...

Wow, that contract was made just as it was becoming possible to distribute online as PDFs, and thereby cut out the role of the distributor in the first place. They've had fifteen years of raking it in, granting them another five would have to be insanity.

Hmm yes, insanity.

Still at least the blog post suggests that Standards Australia are inclined towards breaking the monopoly on distribution, so I guess the general manager was commenting on the option of allowing free downloads. Not that his argument makes any sense there either, especially given what other information can be found for free on the internet (and before that in, libraries).

--
__          __ 
#_ < |\| |< _#
Reply to
Computer Nerd Kev

I don't think the deal with SAI Global was a good idea, but being such an obviously profitable arrangement for SAI Global, it did at least allow Standards Australia to sell SAI Global for a lot of money, so that Standards Australia was able to acquire quite a lot of investment assets. According to its 2018 annual review, gets most of its income from those investments. It only got 18% from royalties, and the WA parliament suggested replacing that with government funding since the government already pays more than that to read the standards.

formatting link
$FILE/A39%20S1%2020160623%20p4018a-4019a.pdf

Reply to
Chris Jones

All standards should be freely available online just as ANSI standards are.

Reply to
keithr0

I have read the discussion paper, and it's not actually about user access or pricing. It's about the new ability of Standards Australia to find ways to monetize the standards they control, and monetize the data of the users and usage of the standards. They want to sub-license the distribution of standards to a significant number of different institutions, but still exercise control over those distributors.

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea or will decrease prices is an idiot.

Meanwhile, we have any number of State and Federal laws and regulations that mandate compliance with a standard, which usually cost $500 or more for a single-user license. Product safety standards, so electronics designers don't kill babies by using the wrong batteries? You have to pay, if you should have the audacity to want to actually create something.

Meanwhile if the government itself fails to comply with international standards (such as some non-compliant and unsafe signage that is prevalent along the Hume Freeway), you can't even check or report the non-compliance without quoting chapter and verse. The price for the road signage standard? >$500 - and that's if you get the right one.

The same comment is made in the discussion paper. We the sheeple should get dumbed-down user-friendly versions of them, with nice colour cartoons suitable to our kinder-garten comprehension and educations.

Who will save us from these pesky bureaucrats and idiot law-makers?

By all means put in a submission, but we also need to lobby our parliamentarians to set in place a principle that they cannot enshrine any law or regulation which requires adherence to any information that is not freely available in full from an authoritative or government-run web-site, or as paper copies that are browsable for free in a library.

Ignorance of the law *is* an excuse, if access to the law requires payment. Anything else is simply unfair.

Clifford Heath.

Reply to
Clifford Heath

** That is not fair comment - Standards are written in legalese and nearly incomprehensible unless you read them ten times. Even then, you need to rea d all the related ones to get the context. This is clearly a task only for the expert and seriously dedicated types.

IME it is extremely easy to misinterpret a Standard and wind up believing i t bans something it does not or permits something it does not.

Try figuring out ( by reading one standard) if step down auto-transformers for use with 230VAC supply are banned from sale, or not.

** Not you, that's for sure.

..... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

** Until the internet came along, even copies of the Criminal law were only obtainable from a couple of places in Sydney for payment - the Government Printers in Ultimo or the Commonwealth Bookshop in Circular Quay.

It has very long been the case that important information that governs our lives is either not readily available, has to be paid for or is impossible to find cos folk are keeping it secret.

IME the so called " freedom of information " laws are a sham, anything that might annoy or embarrass is redacted, you get nothing but junk and you have to pay for that too.

A rather pissed off young man once said to me that the world does not run on the truth, it runs on lies and bullshit.

.... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

I'm not opposed to simplified versions. I'm opposed to using them to justify restricting access to the full versions.

Reply to
Clifford Heath

y
d

rly incomprehensible unless you read them ten times. Even then, you need to read all the related ones to get the context. This is clearly a task only for the expert and seriously dedicated types.

ng it bans something it does not or permits something it does not.

ers for use with 230VAC supply are banned from sale, or not.

** See, you just misread the intention of MY post - as per usual.

FYI: " simplified versions" of standards, just like simplified versions of laws are a fool's pipe dream - utterly unworkable.

It is inherent in the nature of standards and laws that they are written fo r the use of folk with the necessary expertise. They become dangerous in th e hands of the great unwashed.

.... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

I did not misinterpret you. The simplified documents are not intended as replacements for the standards. Read section 6.3 of this to see what I was referring to:

" Members of the public may seek to access information regarding Consumer Interest Standards (e.g. information regarding the standards applicable to baby dummies, cots or buildings).

The information consumers require regarding Consumer Interest Standards may be better presented as an easy to understand explanatory guide, rather than the presentation of technical details required for manufacturers. This type of access avoids making highly technical documents easily available to non-technical people who may not be qualified or able to use the content appropriately.

SA is willing to consider providing appropriate standards content to selected third parties to develop ?plain English? guides to Consumer Interest Standards. The consumer guides would be limited to information useful for consumers as opposed to a manufacturer or tradesperson. "

I remain implacably opposed to excessive dumbing-down of the standards to the lowest level. It is open to (and has resulted in) all kinds of abuse. Just see what's happening with the food health ratings recently! Any simplified guide must remain transparent, sufficient, and true to the full standard, but that's not what has happened - it's being manipulated instead.

They can, but the danger is less than the additional safety from the more intelligent among the "great unwashed" having access, and being able to warn the sheeple when they're being dudded.

Clifford Heath.

Reply to
Clifford Heath

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.