Letter to an AEPMA member from AEPMA President.
AEPMA Member (Name deleted for Anonymity purposes)
8 October 2009
The letter from ACCC address to Adrian La Manna from Standards Australia was forwarded to me in mid September immediately prior to our last board meeting.
The document was discussed and agreement was made to address the questions and direct our two delegates to BD74 to respond. The questions were carefully worded by the ACCC to elicit either a yes or no response. We elaborated on the answers to establish a true and relevant context and to voice our collective expertise of termite biology as well as operational experience of the installation and application of termite management systems.
In the last eighteen months or so we have had strong support for our initial position in relation to AS 3660.1 (BD74) especially the item pertaining to shifting our terminology from the use of termite ‘barriers’ to ‘management systems’ as a general statement.
Initial limited conversation with some board members were inconclusive in evaluating the impact of moving to ‘monitoring systems’ as terminology for physical barriers in general. Therefore, I also support the idea of canvassing/surveying members on their views on how this change, if supported, would benefit the members of AEPMA by ensuring a sustainable market share and profitability in this sector of the industry or, insulate members from liability risk.
In the current environment at Standards Australia, we are unsure if BD74 will reconvene in the near future. As you are aware, the power ultimately lies with the BCA regarding what they will accept and address, or if in fact a review is even warranted. In light of this the board of AEPMA are not resolved on the current standard and will always be prepared to approach this from various angles and fronts. When BD74 reconvenes to review AS 3660.1, then we will be prepared to address the current relevant issues that challenge our members and the pest industry in general.
Regards,
David Gay.
AEPMA National President.
