A Higher Standard for Standards

Australia has more than 9,000 voluntary standards shaping almost every part of daily life. Roughly one-third of these are mandatory due to direct government reference in regulation. These regulatory standards underpin sectors from construction and agriculture to transport, health, and e-commerce. When well-designed, they let markets grow and technologies spread. When fragmented or outdated, they quietly slow change.

And this is what’s happening. Australia’s current approach to adopting and maintaining standards often adds cost, delay, and uncertainty—precisely when we need clarity and speed. My report for the Australian Treasury, prepared for the 2024 Australia–New Zealand Climate and Finance 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue, found that outdated, fragmented, and inaccessible regulatory standards and processes risk slowing investment and technology uptake at the very moment the economy must accelerate toward net zero. 

To enable technological uptake, we should make three key changes to how regulatory standards work in this country: 

1. Regulatory standards should be freely available to all who need to access them.
2. Standards should be implemented based on rigorous analysis, and applied consistently across markets to ensure ease of compliance and competition. 
3. International standards should be favoured over bespoke local standards, in order to better leverage international technological progress.

These three changes would comprise in sum an enormous—and enormously valuable—update to how standards work in Australia. And it’s the kind of action that a government concerned with both productivity and climate action should take.

The National Construction Code requires workers to comply with hundreds of references to inaccessible Australian Standards

Credit:

National Construction Code; Inflection Points annotation.

Standards Australia was recognised as our nation’s official peak standards body in 1988, when the Australian Commonwealth Engineering Standards Association was renamed.¹¹1

The organisation had both commercial and non-commercial functions until 2003, when the commercial arm—SAI Global—was floated on the Australian Stock Exchange. Here is an excerpt from an article published in The Age at the time: 

Once listed, SAI Global will hold the rights to publish and distribute more than 6500 Australian standards and 18,500 international ones, as well as the well-known "5 tick" brand.

"Approximately 70 per cent of the companies comprising the S&P/ASX 200 are customers of SAI Global, and we have a 50 per cent share of the Australian management system certification market," said SAI managing director Ross Wraight.

The group plans to expand its existing businesses through greater demand for "standards and standards-related services" as well as through acquisitions.

The 2003 agreement between Standards Australia and SAI Global created perverse incentives. A 2016 report from Western Australia’s Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation outlines this in detail. Additional royalties were available for "significant new material," and the contract mandated that a maximum of 30% of standards could be more than 10 years old, with at least 7% of the corpus required to be updated at the beginning of each year.³³3

The incentive structure rewarded quantity over quality and encouraged cross-referencing between standards—precisely what a Memorandum of Understanding with Government said standards should avoid.

Through the public listing of SAI Global, Standards Australia raised a $275 million endowment from a 40% stake. But in the process they granted a monopoly licence for standards publishing to a private company, and imposed enormous costs on the rest of the country that seem disproportional to the benefits.⁴⁴4

The monopoly licence granted to SAI Global expired in 2019, but Australian Standards remain extremely expensive. Today, Standards Australia itself continues to sell each of their 9,000 Standards at individual prices in the hundreds of dollars. 

These costs add up quickly. As a tangible example, for a tradesperson or firm to install solar panels, they must comply with six separate Standards. For a single digital copy of each that you are forbidden from sharing or even printing, this will set you back almost $1700.

These are not trivial documents. They are requirements of legislation. Firms are regularly fined large sums for non-compliance. And when it comes to standards that impact the safety and performance of networked infrastructure such as the electrical grid, compliance really matters. 

Standards Australia takes several steps to prohibit sharing of purchased standards.

Credit:

Standards Australia

Importantly, the theoretical rationale for providing standards to potential users free of charge rests on a simple allocative efficiency argument: the marginal cost of distributing standards is effectively zero. While there remains a legitimate question about how to recover the fixed costs of developing standards, imposing monopoly prices is not the solution.

Moreover, as the ACCC has emphasised, requiring businesses to purchase standards mandated by law conflicts with a basic democratic principle—that everyone should have free access to the laws that govern them. In areas such as mandatory safety requirements, compliance should be driven by the imperative to protect public safety, not by opportunities for commercial gain.

Unfortunately, the Australian history of opening up access to regulation and standards has been long and slow. Indeed, it was only in 2015 that the National Construction Code (NCC) was made freely available. But compliance with the open NCC requires compliance with closed Australian Standards. In 2022, a petition to Federal Parliament for free access to Standards received 22,000 signatures. And in July 2025, the new CEO of Standards Australia Rod Balding signalled that change may finally be in the air:

The potential to move to free online standards would also act as an important step towards smarter integrated standards and help support a more fit for purpose regulatory system in 2025 and beyond.

This is significant progress from a key body for regulatory standards nationwide, and indicates that the policy window is open for meaningful reform, should the Government wish to do it.

The problems of Australian Standards extend beyond the paywall, and into real-world implementation—which in our nation can be described at best as a patchwork of systems. 

The transition to net zero is testing this patchwork as never before. As Olivier Blanchard has argued, it is the most profound structural transformation in human history. By 2050, carbon-neutral technologies must supply about 80 per cent of global energy, up from 20 per cent today. However, the net-zero transition is much more than simply switching from fossil fuels to renewable generation.

Globally, billions of people will need to rethink how they consume—from the way they travel to how they use energy and water and reduce waste. At the same time, hundreds of millions of businesses will have to redirect their research and development toward greener production processes—in some cases even changing what they make—and reconsider how and where they source materials and deliver products. Markets can absorb such upheaval only if the rules they depend on are coherent and trusted.

In the 1990s Australia's Council of Australian Governments (CoAG) created clear principles for good regulation. They helped cut red tape and fuel a productivity surge. But those principles have aged and are also partly forgotten. Technology is faster, supply chains global, and climate deadlines tighter. Our system for developing and adopting regulatory standards has not kept up.

Duplication is common: agencies redo work already done by international bodies such as the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) or International Organization for Standardization (ISO), spending years and millions to create bespoke rules for a small market. Updating is slow; new technologies arrive long before rules change. Fragmentation is worse: states and territories often adopt and interpret standards differently, creating disparate sets of standards that businesses must navigate. Fragmentation slices a market that is already small into eight different smaller slices.

Industry consultation and my own research in writing my report revealed many examples of duplication and fragmentation, including:

• Hydrogen Service Stations: jurisdictions interpret the same Wiring Rules differently, creating confusion about whether equipment is classed as "fixed electrical installations" or "machinery." Fragmentation occurs at all levels of the federation. Under Victoria's planning framework, some councils classified hydrogen projects as "industry," others as "service stations." Although centralisation has since helped in Victoria, fragmentation persists across states and territories.
• Battery transport: moving batteries from Perth to Melbourne requires three separate state permits, despite a national code designed to unify the process. Electric vehicle (EV) batteries will outlast cars and their reuse, repurpose and eventual recycling will be a key component of the circular economy that will underpin net zero. Fragmentation will result in delays, extra compliance burdens, and reduced competition.
• EV chargers: Intellihub's trial of 50 light pole chargers in Sydney faced a maze of overlapping approvals, inconsistent council interpretations, and unfavourable Distribution Network Service Provider (DNSP) contract terms. As an example: due to the nature of the project, where power is brought down from the top of the pole, there is inherent flood resilience compared to EV chargers supplied by underground connections. However, council requests for installation design alterations were sometimes incompatible with DNSP requirements, such as height adjustments.

The global race to electrify transport and decarbonise energy is no longer theoretical. Battery production is surging, electric vehicles are hitting mainstream price points, and second-life uses for cells—from grid storage to home back-up—are emerging fast. Yet in Australia the promise of this new battery economy is colliding with a regulatory system that cannot keep pace. In the course of the research I conducted for the Treasury Report, I identified a common pattern: slow, fragmented, and duplicative standards are delaying investment, adding cost and leaving safety gaps.

Take the reuse, repurposing and recycling of lithium-ion batteries. Demand for these cells is soaring worldwide, but Australia is struggling to build a viable recycling industry. Feedstock is inconsistent, operational costs remain high, and at present all recovered "black mass"—the valuable mixture of metals from spent batteries—is exported for processing overseas. Safety is another critical challenge. Without clear and uniform guidelines, storage and transport risks increase.

Standards Australia's mapping exercise identified an urgent need for consistent national rules across the battery supply chain—from collection and storage to testing, repurposing and end-of-life recycling. Today’s disjointed collection of standards slows investment and leaves innovators unsure of compliance. Key technical gaps include up-to-date handling and storage protocols, testing procedures for deciding whether a used battery is safe to reuse or must be recycled, and consistent labelling and traceability standards so batteries can be tracked throughout their life cycle.⁵⁵5

Internationally recognised approaches already exist—UL 1974 for evaluating batteries for repurposing, J17152 for battery terminology, and well-developed IEC/ISO safety guidelines for handling and discharging cells. But Australia has been slow to adopt them. Instead, agencies often restart lengthy, costly development processes or require modifications with little evidence of unique local need. This duplication not only delays safety improvements but also deters global manufacturers from treating Australia as an early market for advanced battery systems.

The picture is similar for electric-vehicle charging infrastructure. The transition to mass EV adoption depends on a safe, interoperable and future-proof charging network. Yet Australian standards for plugs, communication protocols and grid integration have lagged behind international best practice. Chargers compliant with the latest IEC norms have failed Australian regulatory requirements because domestic rules have not been updated. Developers face uncertainty about whether vehicle-to-grid (V2G) systems—which can feed power back into the grid and could unlock billions in consumer and system value—will be allowed or recognised.

Uncertainty and delays have tangible costs. They slow the deployment of fast-charging networks, raise prices for consumers, and risk leaving the grid unprepared for bi-directional energy flows. They also reduce Australia's attractiveness to investors in advanced battery manufacturing, reuse and recycling, sectors with strong growth and job potential.

The costs of duplication and fragmentation are clear. Consumers pay more and wait longer. Businesses hesitate to invest. The Productivity Commission estimates that simply recognising a wider range of overseas standards could save half a billion dollars annually. Enabling technologies such as Vehicle-to-Grid charging could deliver a net present benefit of about two billion dollars, but regulatory lag blocks it.

Crucially, the problem is not that we lack technical expertise; it is that our process for adopting standards is fragmented, duplicative and too slow for fast-moving technologies. Responsibilities are spread across federal, state and territory agencies, with no clear stewardship model. Standards development often starts from scratch rather than leveraging trusted international work. Updating is cumbersome, with rules embedded in Acts or high-level regulations that take years to amend. Access is also restricted: many standards are paywalled, discouraging small businesses from compliance and innovation.

Batteries and EV charging serve as live examples of a wider challenge. The technologies reshaping our energy and transport systems are global, but Australia's approach to standards remains insular and sluggish. The result is both economic and environmental drag: higher costs, delayed decarbonisation and lost industrial opportunities.

The battery economy is a live test of whether Australia can build the invisible architecture needed for net zero. If we get standards right, we can accelerate safe recycling, attract manufacturing and give consumers confidence in new charging technologies. If we persist with bespoke, slow and fragmented processes, we will import technology late and at higher cost, miss industrial opportunities, and undermine our own climate goals. 

Standards aren’t technical trivia. Good standards are a critical piece of economic infrastructure that underpin a dynamic economy by cutting transaction costs and reducing uncertainty for firms. By contrast, fragmented, bespoke national and sub-national rules hinder the ability of Australian firms to engage in productive economic activity..

At their core, standards are a mechanism to aid coordination and overcome information asymmetries that help the businesses and consumers stay on the same page regarding technical specifications and quality. This includes both domestic firms seeking to compete and innovate, and foreign firms looking to engage in profitable trade relations. We can see how good standards drive economic outcomes by considering several channels.

First, standards can lower entry barriers and enhance competition. Without shared specifications, incumbents exploit accumulated tacit knowledge to meet demand more efficiently, while new entrants must rely on reverse engineering or trial and error. Common standards erode that advantage, making markets more contestable. 

Standards also have a material effect on innovation. Context matters here: in stable industries, voluntary standards often reinforce incumbents, while regulated standards can level the field. In fast-moving and emergent sectors, such as batteries and EV charging, premature regulation often misaligns with technology and slows innovation. Where there is high technological uncertainty, voluntary standards work better than rigid regulatory rules as tools of coordination.

Consumers, too, are an important stakeholder in regulation due to the reduction of information asymmetries. By signalling quality, standards prevent “adverse selection”—where buyers fear low quality and good producers exit—and sustain trust between buyers and sellers. It is useful for consumers to be able to verify that a product—such as an EV charger or their latest renovation—is built to the required standard.

As technologies grow more complex, especially  as net-zero requires mass electrification, the need for clear, reliable standards will only intensify, raising difficult policy questions about when voluntary standards should become mandatory.

Beyond the domestic economic effects, recent firm-level research confirms that harmonised product standards promote an expansion in trade. Firms adopt standards to unlock scale economies—by defining common specifications, they allow firms to produce larger volumes of compatible goods, spreading fixed costs over more units. However, as theory predicts, the gains are concentrated among the largest firms. These firms face stronger demand, charge higher prices, and sell greater volumes. The same research estimates that harmonised standards caused up to 13% of the total increase in global trade between 1995 and 2004.

The extensive literature on the economics of standards offers valuable insights for shaping principles to guide regulatory approaches to their adoption. Rigorous impact assessments should examine how standards affect incentives, competition, innovation, network effects, and unintended secondary consequences. Applying good regulatory practice, such as broad consultation, post-implementation review, and the use of international or trusted overseas standards, can help reduce risks and make standards more effective.

A modern, energy-transition-facing approach to standards must answer three questions. 

1. When should governments intervene, moving from voluntary, market-led standards to mandatory ones? 
2. What kind of standards should be mandated if intervention is justified: should authorities rely on recognised international or trusted overseas standards, or should they create bespoke local rules? 
3. How should adoption and updating be governed so the system stays agile enough to keep pace with rapid technological change while remaining coordinated across sectors and jurisdictions?

When governments decide a standard must be mandatory, the default should be to adopt existing international standards or, where these do not exist, trusted overseas standards. This approach not only minimises duplication and cost but also aligns with Australia’s obligations under the World Trade Organization to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade, and enables Australian firms to more easily expand and compete overseas. 

Any regulator proposing to depart from a recognised global standard should bear the burden of proof. Only where there is a compelling, demonstrable local need, such as a distinct climatic condition, a safety risk unique to Australian use, or a clear incompatibility with established infrastructure, should bespoke rules be created. Otherwise, small markets like Australia pay twice: once to design their own rules and again when businesses must adapt global products to meet them.

Equally critical is the way standards are written. Prescriptive standards, which dictate detailed technical specifications, can give clarity and enforceability but risk freezing technology and locking in outdated solutions. Performance-based standards, by contrast, define outcomes, such as levels of safety, interoperability, or emissions, and allow firms to decide how best to achieve them. Where liability regimes and post-market enforcement work effectively, performance-based approaches encourage innovation and competition; prescriptive rules should be reserved for situations where liability cannot protect consumers or where failure would have catastrophic consequences.

Decision-making must also move beyond narrow cost–benefit tallies. Traditional regulatory impact statements often measure administrative burden but miss dynamic effects that really matter: how a standard will alter competition, raise or lower entry barriers, shape innovation incentives, or trigger unintended behaviour. Without this broader view, regulators risk rules that appear efficient on paper but stifle progress in practice. Every proposal to reject or modify an international standard should face a rigorous assessment of these wider market consequences.

Another key lesson is to combine ex ante and ex post tools intelligently. Preventive rules that must be met before a product is sold can provide certainty but can also be heavy-handed if applied too early or too broadly. Liability regimes, post-market surveillance and consumer protection laws can often achieve safety and quality at lower upfront cost. Where liability frameworks are strong and courts can assign responsibility effectively, ex ante requirements can be lighter; where liability is weak or where harm would be unacceptable even once, stricter preventive rules are justified.

Good governance is as important as the rules themselves. Today, regulatory standards decisions are scattered across agencies that often act in isolation, creating conflicting requirements, duplication and gaps. A stewardship model is needed: regulators who not only manage their own portfolios but also coordinate with peers, align with national climate and innovation goals, and anticipate how a decision in one field might reverberate in another. This coordination should extend across the Tasman. A straightforward process confirming that a product meeting an international standard is compliant in both Australia and New Zealand would reduce friction and deepen the single economic market.

Access and agility also matter. Standards hidden behind paywalls deter small firms and slow adoption. Making them freely available would support compliance and innovation. Technical details should be housed in subordinate legislation or instruments that can be updated quickly rather than locked into Acts that take years to amend. When international bodies update their standards, Australia should, wherever safe, adopt those revisions automatically instead of repeating lengthy reviews.

None of this is radical. It builds directly on the reforming spirit of the 1990s, when the CoAG principles—minimise unnecessary burdens, favour performance over prescription, and align with global practice—helped drive a surge in productivity. Those ideas remain sound but need to be strengthened for today’s economy: one that must decarbonise, digitise and integrate with global supply chains at speed.

Modernising the way we adopt regulatory standards could instead save hundreds of millions of dollars each year, accelerate the rollout of electric vehicles and batteries, unlock investment in circular economy industries, protect consumers without stifling innovation, and turn the invisible rules of the economy from friction into fuel for the race to net zero.

When voluntary standards are required by regulation, we should ensure they are openly accessible. When the National Construction Code was made freely available online in 2015, subscribers increased from just 4,000 to 200,000. Free access to standards would remove the incentive to excessively cross-reference, split, and republish standards for revenue rather than improvement.

From an economic perspective, the marginal cost of distributing a digital standard is zero, so allocative efficiency dictates a price of zero. While Standards Australia currently prices at average cost and holds effective monopoly power, alternative funding models exist. Government funding from general revenue or through small industry-wide levies could support open access to standards while ensuring better governance and quality.

Set against construction and technology industries with turnover in the hundreds of billions, the cost of making standards freely available would be modest—but the benefits to compliance, competition, and innovation could be substantial. 

The stakes are high. If Australia clings to bespoke, overlapping, and slow-moving standards, consumers will continue to pay more and wait longer for clean technologies, businesses will hesitate to invest, and climate targets will drift further out of reach. Trade integration with New Zealand and other partners will weaken. 

But if we get standards right, then we will realise the gains of a more dynamic and future-focused economy. International technologies will be easier to adopt, firms and individuals will be empowered to innovate, and construction will be demystified. If productivity is on the national agenda, then that agenda should be underpinned by strong reform of invisible regulatory infrastructure. A higher standard of standards is possible.