ASSOCIATIONS
15
members at one point, because we felt it important to hear
from all players in the market, regardless of their size, track
record, product quality or even their ethics. The concept
was that as an association we must first know as much
about our own market as possible and the people playing
in it before trying to manage issues of quality, certification,
performance and accountability.
Secondly, as a response to one of the worst times
(mentioned below) one of the best times was when we
rapidly developed a strong relationship with AENOR. This
Spanish-based international certification body came to
rescue our industry from the absurd behaviour at SABS.
To give the industry an alternative to the SABS’s abusive
monopoly on local certification has to have been one of our
greater achievements. AENOR now has multiple certificate
holders in South Africa, their certificates are endorsed by
SANAS (SA National Accreditation System) and they continue
to grow. I know that for one local distributor certification that
was going to cost over R1-million and take up to 12 months,
was completed in less than three months at a cost of just
R30 000, because most of the ILAC approved test data was
readily available and the balance could be done locally.
PA: What was the worst time for PHACT?
KP: There were two occasions that were particularly
disappointing: While it was a relatively simple matter to get
ISO standards for monolayer pipe systems approved as
SA National Standards, the same could not be said for the
multi-layer standards. At the time there were only discussion
documents at ISO or draft standards in the US. So, progress
in developing what eventually became SANS 21003 for
multi-layer pipe systems was slow and tortuous, exacerbated
by some members wanting to opportunistically adapt the
international standards to suit their own purposes. The
leadership of PHACT was accused of representing only the
interests of the monolayer systems and this resulted in many
members leaving PHACT to form SAMPSA (SA Multilayer
Pipe Systems Association). While this was quite hurtful, as
there was no truth to the allegations, the benefit was that it
rid PHACT of many of the less scrupulous operators without
us having to jettison them. When SAMPSA disbanded after
just 6 months, we were able to welcome back only those
multilayer members who we felt upheld our shared beliefs
and values, and that is where PHACT stands today.
Secondly: the SABS. Love them or hate them, they are
there, and we have to deal with them. The reality is that
a professional industry can only uphold its ethics and
standards if the standards bodies involved do the same.
It is common cause that SABS fell apart for several years
and is still struggling to re-build. Perhaps we will never
know exactly what the causes were (there are some very
interesting stories) but the immediate effect of their abrupt
cancelling of what was called partial or representative/
witness testing, was that members firstly couldn’t get their
product certifications renewed, and latterly they could
only do this at more than triple the previous cost. The
consequence was that members could only trade with valid
certification based on when their last renewal happened to
be, and therefore when it would expire. It sounds dramatic,
but contracts worth millions were lost because of the SABS’s
arrogant attitude, and their intransigence on the issues. For
example, as a signatory to the World Trade Organisation
(via Department of Trade and Industry) ILAC (International
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation) agreement the SABS
must accept test data from ILAC approved facilities around
the globe towards local certification. This is an international
January 2020 Volume 25 I Number 11
Ken Patrick, founder and outgoing chairman of PHACT.
effort to reduce trade barriers. The SABS’s opinion on this
is, ‘No! You must re-do all the tests and pay us for it. How
much will this cost? Well we don’t know yet, it depends on
the exchange rate because we will be using overseas labs to
do the testing since we do not have the facilities ourselves,
and by the way, the laboratories we intend to use are the
same laboratories whose tests data you already have but we
refuse to accept!’ Wow, that was a low point!
PA: Now that you are all but out of the plumbing industry
what will you say to the plumbing sector?
KP: Since I first entered the plumbing market almost 20
years ago the common gripe has been that the plumber
does not get paid in relation to the difficulty/ quality/ value of
the work performed. Many industries could claim the same
poor treatment, but like those industries, the only way to stop
the proverbial ‘bakkie plumber’ from dragging down pricing
is to accept rules and governance. The same plumbers who
complain about poor rates are those that refuse to belong to
industry bodies like IOPSA whose very purpose is to improve
the industry. I understand that there will always be suspicion
around new initiatives to manage or control the market, but
without control there can be no standardisation, and without
that – anything goes, fertile ground for the ‘bakkie plumber’.
“The SABS,
love them or
hate them,
they are there,
and we have
to deal with
them.”
A certificate of compliance should not be seen as an
unnecessary hoop to jump through, but an opportunity
to improve the industry as a whole, and in the process a
chance to get more work. Initiatives like the SA Watermark
scheme and PIRB are specifically aimed at improving
the legitimacy of the industry, the products that are used
in it, and the craftsmen that operate in it. If you do not
consider yourself a craftsman in this industry then you
probably shouldn’t consider yourself a plumber, and you
will immediately be identifiable as the person who doesn’t
want rules, control or standardisation. In which case, enjoy
your bakkie! PA
www.plumbingafrica.co.za