By: David Nixon, NSW SQID Taskforce Chair, Sydney
Date: October 11, 2025
A seal of approval is a promise. It’s a guarantee to the market that a product has been rigorously tested, independently verified, and meets a high standard of quality and performance. For our industry, the national Stormwater Quality Improvement Device Evaluation Protocol (SQIDEP) is meant to be that seal. It’s the system that gives councils and developers the confidence to specify and approve products.
But what happens when that seal is tarnished?
After extensive review, the NSW SQID Taskforce has found that the verification system intended to be our industry’s bedrock of trust is suffering from critical flaws. These weaknesses are not just administrative; they are actively eroding confidence, hindering progress, and creating unacceptable risks. 🛡️
Cracks in the Foundation: What’s Wrong with Our Verification System?
Our investigation has uncovered several fundamental problems that must be addressed urgently:
- The “One and Done” Flaw (No Re-certification): Currently, once a product is verified, it holds that approval indefinitely. In an industry where technology is constantly evolving, this is a dangerous oversight. A device approved a decade ago may have been surpassed by newer, more effective solutions, or its manufactured design may have changed. Yet, it still carries the same “seal of approval.” It’s like giving a car a 5-star safety rating in 2015 and still promoting it as top-of-the-line today, completely ignoring a decade of safety advancements.
- A Lack of Transparency: For many, the verification process operates like a “black box.” Applications are submitted and a result is eventually returned, but the detailed workings, the reasoning behind decisions, and the governance of the process are often opaque. This lack of transparency breeds suspicion and makes it impossible for the industry to have full faith in the system’s fairness and rigor.
- Unmanaged Conflicts of Interest: The system has struggled to transparently manage the complex web of interests that exist between manufacturers, consultants, and evaluators. Even the perception of a conflict of interest is enough to damage the credibility of the entire program.
- No Clear Path for Dispute Resolution: What happens when a manufacturer legitimately disagrees with an evaluation? The report found that a clear, fair, and independent process for resolving disputes is critically underdeveloped, leaving participants with little recourse.
The Result: A System Undermined
These flaws have led to predictable and damaging consequences. The lack of trust is a key reason why states like Victoria, Tasmania, and Western Australia have largely opted out of the national system, creating the fragmented, inconsistent regulatory patchwork we see today. Furthermore, a process seen as opaque or unfair can stifle innovation, discouraging manufacturers from investing in new technologies.
Rebuilding the Seal of Approval
A trusted verification system is not a luxury; it is essential for a professional and effective industry. The NSW SQID Taskforce Report provides a detailed blueprint for rebuilding that trust. We are calling for a complete overhaul that includes:
- Mandatory Re-certification: Introducing a system where approvals expire (e.g., every five years), forcing products to be re-evaluated against current standards.
- Radical Transparency: Making the entire process—from evaluator selection to decision-making criteria—open and accessible.
- Robust Governance: Implementing strict, transparent conflict of interest registers and an independent, clearly defined process for dispute resolution.
The NSW SQID Taskforce Report details these critical flaws in the national protocol, from transparency to funding. We seek your expert opinion on the proposed reforms to build a verification process that is robust and trustworthy.
We have commenced a broad consultation process across industry, government, councils and industries. We are aiming to prepare a feedback supplement at the conclusion of the consultation period.
Review the consultation draft, Volume One, outlining recommendations, available on the Stormwater 2030 website.
Submit feedback via the Taskforce Feedback Form by Monday, December 1, 2025.
