Five industry groups have come together to question the validity of issues raised by the Australian Refrigeration Association (ARA) as part of the federal government's review of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act.
All five groups claim the ARA is misleading industry and that inaccurate public pronouncements have been made about the ozone review process.
The concerns are listed in a formal letter to the ARA which is signed by the Airconditioning and Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturers of Australia (AREMA), the Airconditioning Mechanical Contractors Association (AMCA), Refrigerants Australia (RA), the Automotive Airconditioning, Electrical and Cooling Technicians of Australasia (VASA) and Refrigerant Reclaim Australia (RRA).
The signatories are all part of the Technical Working Group (TWG) which was created to provide a consultative body between industry and government as part of the ozone review process. The signatories claim the ARA is misrepresenting the review and implying that the government is failing to listen to industry or respond to issues that have been raised throughout the review process.
Refrigerants Australia executive director, Greg Picker, one of the signatories on the open letter to the ARA, said the government has provided ample opportunity for industry to make suggestions, present views and table proposals.
"There has been plenty of meetings throughout the year in which we were all in attendance and given the opportunity to raise issues. ARA's failure to get its views across is due to inaction, not a failure by the depatment to listen," Picker said.
In response to the ozone review the ARA has made two submissions to government. In the submissions the ARA calls on the government to take more action to help industry transition to a low Global Warming Potential (GWP) environment.
The ARA has been vocal in its criticism of the federal government. ARA president, Tim Edwards, believes government inaction is failing industry especially when it comes to regulation, training and education.
Despite this view, all five industry groups said they are concerned by many of the claims being made by Edwards labelling them as 'inaccurate' and 'unfair'. When contacted by CCN Edwards said he was surprised by the open letter. "I am not aware of these organisations being appointed custodians of this legislation I thought the review was owned and directed by the Department of the Environment. I am surprised by the liberty they are taking in writing this letter," he said.