THE PRESS MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 1986. Electrical appliance safety

Press, 27 January 1986, Page 20

THE PRESS MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 1986. Electrical appliance safety

Proposals have been made again for a new testing authority to approve all electrical goods before they go on sale in New Zealand. The Standards Association has repeated its concern about the number of imported appliances being sold in New Zealand without being tested or meeting New Zealand safety standards; the Consumers’ Institute has countered with the opinion that there is little difference in safety between domestic and imported appliances; since then, Sir Robertson Stewart, the head of one of New Zealand’s largest manufacturers of electrical equipment and appliances, has added his weight to the call for a new testing procedure. In public statements and in its reports to Parliament over several years, the Standards Association has been constant in its opposition to the appearance on the New Zealand market of imported electrical goods that it considers below standard and “often highly dangerous.” In recent years the association has uncovered some imported items such as a child’s electric night light and a portable hair drier that were found to be unsafe. They were subsequently withdrawn from sale.

The association believes that too many imported appliances have wiring irregularities or substandard components, but, because of their low price, can appear to be an attractive alternative to New Zealand products that have been tested and carry the “S” mark of approval. The association wants all imported electrical goods to be subject to strict safety testing on entry. Most of whatever testing is done on these goods is done by the Consumers’ Institute, which regularly examines domestic and imported appliances. According to the institute, its programme has revealed very little difference in safety between the electrical goods manufactured overseas and available in New Zealand and the electrical goods made locally. Part of the reason for this, the institute believes, is that the safety requirements in many of the Western countries from which New Zealand imports electrical appliances are higher even than the standards demanded of New Zealand manufacturers. The institute makes the important proviso, however, that there have been instances of overseas manufacturers ignoring their own local safety regulations because they knew a certain line of production was for export.

This does not answer, of course, for appliances imported from countries that do not require a high standard of safety from their manufacturers. Nor, since most of the Consumers’ Institute testing is done on goods already on the retail market, does it prevent potentially lethal items being sold to

unsuspecting users. The electrical flaws might not be discovered until after some appliance has been on the market for months, by which time thousands might have been sold and the damage done. Nevertheless, the items recalled because of a latent electrical hazard are relatively few when compared with the vast range of electrical goods being sold. The general standard of electrical safety is good.

At least some New Zealand manufacturers apparently consider that the present system of testing is inefficient and confused. If the allocation of standards approval is subject to these handicaps, the manufacturers’ desire for something better is understandable. An improvement in the system of local certification could probably be achieved without a whole new authority; requiring the certification of imported as well as domestically produced electrical appliances might be expected to increase the overloads and delays in testing about which some New Zealand manufacturers complain. The chief advantage to New Zealand manufacturers in requiring imported goods to match rigorous safety standards would be to eliminate some of the cheaper competition. Who should pay for a new testing procedure, should one be introduced? Whether the taxpayer or the manufacturers should meet the cost might depend on who benefits most — the purchasing public, by having a standard required of all appliances; or the manufacturers, who are gaining a selling point for their wares and, incidentally, protection against shoddy competitors. In any event, a standards approval for the design and general quality of a line of goods is not, and cannot be, a guarantee against misadventure or a failing in any particular item. Warranties remain the province of the manufacturer and the decision to buy an appliance, approved or not, remains a personal decision for the purchaser.

Thousands of appliances are brought into New Zealand each year by travellers. Some are for their own use; some are intended as gifts; and some are probably sold in due course. No-one seriously contends that these should be impounded on arrival and returned to their owners only after safety testing. In the long run, the best guarantee against unsafe products appearing on shop shelves is a blend of responsible manufacturers, jealous of their good reputations, and a safetyconscious public aware of the advantages of standards approval. Specific requirements such as the electrical wiring regulations can play a useful part; but they do not relieve the buying public of all responsibility. Now, as always, it is a case of “buyer beware.”