Someone call Doc Brown (or perhaps David Webb, pictured) because referencing IEC 439, a Standard that dates back to 1990, is trying to take us back to the future.

By David Webb*

The film Back to the Future showed how choices today (in 1985) can have a large and long-lasting impact tomorrow.

The message of the film – featuring the shiny, superficially tempting, but commercially tragic DeLorean car – brought to my mind some of the claims by non-NESMA manufacturers throughout Australia who parade products built to outdated standards as if the time-warp standards had some value and offer safety and compliance protection for customers.

The fact is modern manufacturing techniques have progressed to the point where reference to very old standards – literally last century stuff – is totally irrelevant. They do the opposite to measuring up to the protections offered by the Standard we are obliged by statute to follow, AS/NZS 61439 AS/NZS 3439

Rather than protections, they are a ticking time bomb liabilities that can come back to bite customers, when and if anything goes wrong – when their switchboards are inspected for safety and Standards compliance, for example, leading on to insurance and workplace responsibilities. It will happen.

The message of Back to the Future, featuring the superficially tempting but commercially tragic DeLorean (pictured), reminded David Webb of some of the claims by non-NESMA manufacturers in Australia who parade products built to outdated Standards

Let’s look hypothetically at the range of specifications that come across our desk that do not even reference our industry’s obligatory statutory Standard, AS/NZS 61439 or AS/NZS 3439 – and the compliance protections it offers.

I say hypothetically, because we are not singling out just one consultant writing a specification here, but rather spanning the broader spectrum of specifications that leave compliant manufacturers like ourselves not knowing whether to laugh, cry, get angry, or feel sorry.

So, what trigged my putting pen to paper? Oops, old reference, I fell into the same trap. What triggered my pounding the keyboards?

An extract came across my desk. The extract (see below) came from a specification calling up requirements for a new switchboard.

Approved Switchboard Manufacturer

“Main Switchboards shall only be manufactured by firms who are able to provide Type Tested Designs in accordance with the requirements of IEC 439. Type Test Certificates shall be relevant to the switchboard design and manufacturing system offered and, in no case, be more than 5 years old.”

Buckle up, because this is going to be one heck of a ride – complete with DeLorean references.

IEC 439 – Literally Last Century

First up, IEC 439. For those playing along at home, this standard isn’t just outdated – it’s practically a historical artefact. IEC 439 was superseded by IEC 603439, and then that was replaced by IEC 61439. So yes, we’re talking about a standard that dates back to 1990, meaning it’s been irrelevant for over three decades.

Think about it: 1990 was the year the Berlin Wall fell, Ghost won Best Picture, and the first web browser was still just a dream. And yet here we are, dragging IEC 439 out of the archives as if it’s the cutting edge of electrical compliance. Someone call Doc Brown, because this clause is clearly trying to take us back to the future – except the flux capacitor must be broken, because we’re stuck in the past.

Type Tests vs. Verification Tests – Welcome to 2025

And then there’s the matter of Type Tests. If the writers of such claims had glanced at AS/NZS 61439 – the current standard – they’d know that Type Tests are gone. Kaput. Replaced by Verification Tests over a decade ago.

But hey, why bother updating terminology when you can cling to relics of the past? Apparently, “progress” is overrated. After all, if it worked in 1990, why change now? Who needs modern standards when you’ve got nostalgia?

Approved Manufacturer? Good Luck with That.

Now let’s decode this gem:

“Main Switchboards shall only be manufactured by firms who are able to provide Type Tested Designs in accordance with the requirements of IEC 439.”

What does this mean? Well, it implies that only firms who have directly tested the designs themselves are eligible. Here’s the problem: under the AS/NZS 61439 series, most Australian switchboard manufacturers are classified as assemblers, not original manufacturers.

In other words, this clause excludes the vast majority of Australian switchboard manufacturers. Unless, of course, you’re an overseas company that time-travelled from the ’90s with a truckload of outdated standards in your back pocket. Congratulations, you’re “approved”! Everyone else? Tough luck.

Certificates That Don’t Exist

Then we get this zinger:

“Type Test Certificates shall be relevant to the switchboard design and manufacturing system offered and, in no case, be more than 5 years old.”

Let’s unpack this nonsense. First off, Type Tests (or Verification Tests, as we now call them) don’t typically come with “certificates.” They come with reports. But even if they did, there’s another glaring issue: IEC 439 is from 1990, and the last time anyone was using it was decades ago.

So how exactly are manufacturers supposed to provide a test report that’s less than 5 years old for a standard that hasn’t been valid since the Berlin Wall fell?

Unless someone has figured out time travel, this clause is impossible to comply with. And for the record, AS/NZS 61439 or IEC 61439 explicitly states that tests conducted under IEC 439 don’t need to be retested, provided the requirements haven’t changed. So why is this clause demanding fresh reports for a fossilised standard?

If Only They Knew About Annex C

Here’s where it gets even better. If the writers of such nonsense had a copy of AS/NZS 61439 or IEC 61439, and had stayed in school long enough to read it, they’d know about Annex C:

Annex C (Informative): User Information Template

This annex is intended as a template for the identification of items necessary for the assembly manufacturer, which is to be provided by the user.

In plain English: if you actually fill in the User Information Template at the start of the process, specifying exactly what you need, you might – brace yourself – end up with a compliant switchboard. Imagine that!

But no, why bother with practical tools when you can just copy-paste random, outdated clauses into a specification and hope for the best?

AS/NZS 3000 – The Elephant in the Room

Oh, and let’s not forget AS/NZS 3000, specifically Clause 2.10.3.2. This states that switchboards must comply with either AS/NZS 3439 or the AS/NZS 61439 series. Notice anything missing? That’s right: IEC 439 doesn’t even get a mention.

So even if you managed to comply with this nonsensical clause, you’d still fail to meet Australian requirements. No Certificate of Electrical Safety for you! But hey, why let pesky little things like national standards and laws get in the way?

Are We Even Trying?

Let’s cut to the chase. If you want a compliant switchboard, here’s a revolutionary idea:

1. Learn what the current standard is.
2. Read it.
3. Use it as intended.
4. Fill in the User Information Template at the start of the process.

This isn’t exactly cutting-edge stuff, folks. AS/NZS 3000 literally requires you to do this, so maybe – just maybe – we should start following the legislation we’re bound by.

Consulting Engineers – a call to action

Finally, we have to ask: who’s writing and promulgating this drivel? You would certainly trust that our consulting engineer colleagues are aware IEC 439 is a historical relic?

So who is just cashing in, pretending to be experts, while reviewing workshop drawings with no understanding of the current standards?

If they can’t tell the difference between IEC 439 and AS/NZS 61439, I think we’ve got a bigger problem than just bad clauses.

Final Thoughts: A Lesson in impossibility

The clauses we see coming across our desks are a masterclass in how not to write a technical specification. They are outdated, contradictory, and impossible to comply with.

But hey, at least it gave me a good laugh – and an excuse to reference Doc Brown and his DeLorean.

The takeaway? If you’re going to write specifications, maybe start by cracking open a copy of the current standard. And if that feels like too much effort, there’s always time travel. I hear 1990 was lovely this time of year.

Part 2: “The Sequel” to follow later this year

I can’t quite decide what to talk about.

Maybe cadmium-plated bolts, classified as hazardous since the 1990s.

Or perhaps superseded or withdrawn Australian Standards still being called up.

Or maybe the peculiar trend of specifying Type AC RCDs, banned since April 2023.

Or perhaps, just maybe, the importance of reading the AS/NZS 61439.0 User Guide before sending out a tender for a new switchboard.

If you have a gem example of claims that are infuriating you, with the type of issues I refer to, more or less, and want to share it with me, I’m up for the challenge. Send them in to david@drcswitchboards.com.au.

After all, this is “Switchboards, Standards, and the Art of Obfuscation Part 1.” Let’s see what Part 2 brings – laughs, tears, or sheer disbelief.

The adventure continues.

*David Webb is President of NESMA Victoria and Managing Director of DRC Switchboards, which has an unwavering dedication to excellence and innovation, superior quality, and compliance.