Standard Setting and Laboratory Accreditation
The Productivity Commission released its research report into ‘Standard Setting and Laboratory Accreditation’ in November 2006. The Commission was asked to define the appropriate role for the Australian Government in standard setting and laboratory accreditation, the efficiency and effectiveness of current services, and appropriate means of funding. The Commission found there is a need to improve arrangements for the development of Australian Standards and the accreditation of laboratories in Australia. The Commission calls for better justification processes before new standards are developed, an improved appeals and complaints mechanism and more balanced stakeholder representation on committees. The report examines the Government's relationship with the two main non-government bodies in these areas: Standards Australia and the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA). Overall, both Standards Australia and NATA are effective and their recognition by the Australian Government should continue. However, areas for improvement have been identified and changes to government funding arrangements are needed to better reflect the balance of private and public interests in their activities.
|This book is provided by Productivity Commission, Government of Australia in its series Research Reports with number 22 and published in 2006.|
|ISBN:||1 74037 212 3|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: 61 3 9653 2100
Fax: 61 3 9653 2199
Web page: http://www.pc.gov.au/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Paul Temple & Robert Witt & Chris Spencer, 2004. "Institutions and Long-Run Growth in the UK: the Role of Standards," School of Economics Discussion Papers 1004, School of Economics, University of Surrey.
- Lea, Gary & Hall, Peter, 2004. "Standards and intellectual property rights: an economic and legal perspective," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 67-89, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ris:prodcs:22. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (MAPS)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.