Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635486778.pdf (Australia)
Community Debate Submission to Senate Enquiry into Non-Conforming Building Products After agreement was reached that a systemic breakdown in the governance of pre-construction termite management had occurred, legal due process dictated a “Community Debate” be established to review major and far-reaching problems discovered by the Termite Action Group (TAG).
The information here supplied in this submission is set to aid understanding of the TAG Submission to the Senate, such an understanding being in the public interest.

Over forty odd years I was employed by Shell, Dow AgroScience and FMC.

When with FMC, in September 1999 I had the great good fortune of becoming a foundation member of Mr. Andrew Campbell’s TAG lobby.

Much of the information I am providing was generated because FMC’s country manager at that time (Mr. liaise closely with the TAG. )
requested that I Earlier at FMC I was party to R & D work on two termite management reticulation systems which irrefutably failed, being unfit for purpose.

Non-conforming building productsSubmission 140 TMA Corporation & Termimesh The accompanying documents are provided in the public interest.

Two ETRS Scientific Reports into the Termimesh product demonstrate that the product suffers from the effects of crevice corrosion.
When these reports were first requested by the TAG, I accompanied the TAG Co-ordinator, Mr. Andrew Campbell when he discussed the implications of these reports with Mr. the reports.

, the signatory to These reports confirmed the widely reported fact of Termimesh corrosion from across the Australian residential housing construction fraternity – architects, building designers, builders, pest managers and building certifiers.
Their respective national representative bodies could and would confirm this circumstance.

Initially Termimesh used 304 stainless steel grade, which was later replaced by a higher 316 marine grade stainless steel mesh, that which was tested by ETRS.

I understand that the TMA Corporation have since progressed to a 726 proprietary grade stainless steel mesh product, which includes extra chromium and molybdenum, a far more expensive higher grade Termimesh.
The advice from of ETRS was that you simply achieve a higher grade of corrosion resistance, and never achieve corrosion proofing.

Non-conforming building productsSubmission 140 Various governments at all levels, local/state/territory and federal, are major users of this product, which is based on the false claim; “there is no need to use chemicals”.
TAG Co-ordinator Mr. Campbell, and the TAG are both subject to a so called ‘Gag Order’ (Minute of Consent) provided in the Federal Court to the TMA Corporation.

This came about when the TAG website was hacked after the ETRS reports were posted to; www.termiteactiongroup.com.au for building certifiers and specifiers to review.
The TMA Corporation claimed Campbell had caused the imputation to be made that the TMA Corporation had been directly or indirectly involved in the hacking of the website, because the ETRS Reports were posted on the TAG website at that time.

The court order in mind, Campbell and the TAG are unable to furnish the ETRS reports to the Senate.

The COMMUNITY DEBATE is set in the public interest, therefore reports these facts.
This is one of several points of public interest that saw the legal fraternity encouraging and assisting me in establishing the COMMUNITY DEBATE.

The TMA Corporation used the Federal Court to stop the TAG from providing the truth about the flaws in the Termimesh product.

The Federal Court case, initiated by the TMA Corporation, was based on a technicality, not on the flaws in the Termimesh product.
There are strong and oft-repeated allegations that the TMA Corporation provides political donations to both major parties, and retains government contracts when either side is in power.

Non-conforming building productsSubmission 140 As a former FMC employee, I dealt with various government departments on termite management issues.

I can advise it was impossible to break the TMA Corporation’s hold on government contracts.
The TAG attempted to have the ACCC review several installations of Termimesh to demonstrate that the system suffered certain failure where humidity, heat and salt were present after providing the ACCC with the ETRS Reports.

The TAG had some success in having a Termimesh warranty extended by the ACCC after it was found that they had misrepresented their product.
The TAG advised Mr. of the ACCC that if he took a sample of Termimesh from the western side of a house that had been erected for more than twelve months, he would most certainly find evidence of crevice corrosion.

Andrew often advised that it would be difficult to have a government agency investigate a product that most Australian governments – federal, state, territory and local – were specifying, and had been specifying over many years.
The ACCC did not act on this matter and Campbell advised me at the time that the ACCC would hardly act against a company whose product was widely used by virtually all government schools, hospitals, defence housing and other government buildings.

It was well known across the Australian residential housing construction fraternity, and frequently referenced by pest managers and builders, Termimesh was prone to corrosion.

An open secret in industry.


Non-conforming building productsSubmission 140 The TMA Corporation was a litigious group, adept at covering up these events with legal documents after pay-outs or remedial works had been performed quote; “We will fix your property if you sign a waiver or a confidentiality agreement” or similar words to same effect.

Termimesh installations are locked into bricks and mortar and break down in this situation to be a non-conforming building system.
The TMA Corporation continues to use their expensive Termimesh product in lucrative government projects, while using a ‘bait & switch’ program in residential housing by advertising expensive Termimesh and then switching buyers to their cheaper ‘Smartfilm’ product.

Termimesh is extensively marketed overseas and considered to be an Australian business success story.

It is now owned by the Japanese.


Reticulated Termite Management Systems FMC head-hunted me from Dow AgroScience in January 1996 where I had been involved in chemical reticulation systems R & D. Dow AgroScience had the patent for the organophosphate active known as chlorpyrifos which was marketed as a chemical termiticide under the trade name Dursban.

Dursban was the first replacement product for the organochlorines when they were removed from market in June 1995.
FMC brought out their competing product Biflex which was a synthetic pyrethroid soon after Dursban entered the market.

Non-conforming building productsSubmission 140 The APVMA – known at that time as the NRA – had fast-tracked the registration of Biflex (bifenthrin) because Dow’s Dursban was found to be unfit for purpose.
Dursban retains APVMA registration and is responsible for major pre- construction termite management problems in Pacific nations who adopt Australian building codes, most notably Papua New Guinea.

After testing reticulation systems with Dow AgroScience, I was involved in testing reticulation systems with FMC.

Reticulation systems in use before organochlorines were phased out were transporting effective and persistent high vapour chemistries.
These systems are now used to transport low vapour replacement chemistries that are less persistent and less effective.

At FMC, the R & D team determined the ALTIS system (Refer ALTIS Note) not fit for purpose.

FMC commissioned R & D field trials on the Camilleri and Termguard reticulation systems.

All the reticulation systems commissioned by Dow and FMC for R & D trialing were proven to be unfit for purpose.

FMC developed a special commercial relationship with Termguard.
FMC management had decided that if it was not their product going through the Termguard system, it would be someone else’s product as justification for their decision.

FMC sought legal advice from Mr. who advised that Termguard were responsible if the product was not delivered in accordance with the labelled rate.

These decisions were made by Mr. Country Manager before Mr. who was the FMC replaced him in 2000.
Non-conforming building productsSubmission 140 was somewhat shocked at what Mr. Mr. and attempted to get the FMC testing for the TAG from FMC, but Mr. who was still employed overseas in a technical role with FMC had done continually vetoed these attempts.

was then to get Mr. Mr. officer for FMC in Australia who headed up the FMC research into reticulation systems to explain to Mr. Campbell (TAG) what the problems were with reticulation.
the senior research As I recall, the meeting between four hours which was highly unusual.

and Campbell went for over Meetings most people had with minutes and it was rare to have a meeting that went for half an hour.

only went for periods of had with Campbell was fully briefed on a range of concerns the Biflex product being transported through the Termguard system or any other reticulation system.
I was present when Campbell took his concerns on these issues to Mr. with advice in email form (See TAG Email & FMC Former Manager’s Reply) from Mr. of the ACCC and Campbell provided confirming those concerns.

The ACCC was cc’d on both these emails but took no action in these matters.

Much pro bono legal support was provided to me when FMC became the defendant in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

As the defendant, FMC advised the court that the matter being heard was merely vexatious and frivolous.
The Court ruled against FMC; “There is a case to be heard”.

Non-conforming building productsSubmission 140 Shortly thereafter, I was professionally advised that there is no necessary or appropriate legislation in place to run the case.

I am aware of six reticulation systems that are Code-Marked as termite management systems.

I would advise that from my experience in the R & D of these systems, none are fit for purpose, therefore they should be considered Non- Conforming Building Products.
Physical Termite Management Systems I concur with the TAG, none of the physical termite management systems which are Code-Marked; are fit for purpose.

The TAG has won the battle in having these products lose their ‘barrier status’.

The TAG rightly asks; “What is a termite management system and how does it manage termites?” I further concur with the TAG in their belief that these systems should be discussed as termite monitoring systems, because regular inspections are fundamental to their performance.
It would also stop these systems being discussed as termite barriers!

Until these systems are re-tested, and their mode of action is properly determined to assess their status, physical systems should be considered Non-Conforming Building Products.

Non-conforming building productsSubmission 140 These systems are generally described as “termite barriers” by sales persons and installers.
Most of these systems require chemistry to be applied as soon as they are challenged or bridged or breached, by termites despite outrageous claims that they are chemical-free and environmentally- friendly.

Timber Treatments Most timber treatments in the market-place are envelope-only treatments that provide very limited termite protection.

Cuts in timber on-site provide massive entry points into timber despite the nonsensical advice by timber treaters.
A full-infusion timber treatment system was introduced into Australia which is the only system I believe is totally effective against termites.

An IRG Paper (See IRG WP 14-10814) was written by Dr. John French and Dr. Berhan Ahmed on this multi-component biocide system discussed as Tru-Core in their scientific paper.

The chairperson of Standard Australia’s termite management committee, the bd-074, was in Utah chairing the session when this paper was submitted to the gathered audience.
The chairperson of the bd-074 set himself heavily against the acceptance of the paper and challenged what was recorded in the document asking that the paper be withdrawn.

Academics tied to other products, and Dr. Queensland government academic involved with outbreaks of West , a Non-conforming building productsSubmission 140 Indian drywood termites, created much debate and uproar at the meeting demanding that the scientific paper be withdrawn.
Dr. French & Dr. Ahmed reluctantly withdrew the paper after threatened legal action from the TMA Corporation who claimed that their product Termimesh had been misrepresented in the paper.

The advice in the paper was that the physical systems needed minimum yearly inspections to maintain their warranty with minimum yearly inspections for physical systems being recommended in the Standard.
The purpose of this advice was to demonstrate costs of these systems over the life of the system demonstrating that these costs were extensive when amortized over the life of the system.

TMA Corporation wanted to take Dr. French & Dr. Ahmed to court on this matter despite their understanding that the Termimesh system requires a minimum of one inspection a year as it can be bridged in minutes.
The TMA Corporation advised that Termimesh did not require annual inspections to maintain the warranty and yet it was unable to operate without regular inspections.

The TMA Corporation was again litigiously using the courts to stop the introduction of a scientific paper that clearly informed people on the benefits of a system that could improve the situation for people throughout Australia.
The Tru-Core multi-component biocide timber treatment system is the only termite management system I am personally aware of that works and it may well be lost to Australia.

Non-conforming building productsSubmission 140 Closing Remarks As can be seen, many of the termite management products and systems current to market in Australia are not fit for purpose.

The COMMUNITY DEBATE complements the TAG agenda and outcomes.
After it was agreed a major and far-reaching systemic breakdown in our federated “Westminster” system of governance (with regards termite management) had occurred, three non-incriminating goals were set to launch the COMMUNITY DEBATE:-  Mitigate the ongoing post-construction termite damage  Cease ongoing specification, installation and certification of termite management products / systems duly reported by industry and / or consumers to the appropriate regulatory authorities– primarily the ACCC and the ABCB - as being unfit for purpose  Gain government involvement and leadership in redress of the current situation Since 2012 those three goals have enjoyed overwhelming endorsement from industry (HIA, MBA, BDAA, AIBS, etc.
etc.

), consumers and in strict confidence many duly informed public servants – including ACCC and ABCB senior public servants.

Sincerely Richard Kingsley Non-conforming building productsSubmission 140 FREELANCE ADVISOR P: Richard Kingsley.

COMMUNITY DEBATE.

Non-conforming building productsSubmission 140