Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008, which amends the National Measurement Act 1960. I agree with the member for Groom about the significance which can be attached to this bill—it is a very significant reform indeed—but I disagree with his attempt to portray that this is a conservative initiative and that there is some divergence between Labor and the conservatives on this issue. In fact, measurement in Australia has a 100-year history, which I intend to take you through briefly. You will see through that that it has really been quite bipartisan. This long, drawn-out history has led us to this point.

This bill introduces a national system of trade measurement based on the existing state and territory systems. This bill will bring certainty and consistency to interstate traders by instituting uniform systems of trade measurement, rectifying the current fragmented systems of trade measurement which we have across eight separate jurisdictions. In doing that we move significantly to providing consistency in this area across all jurisdictions in Australia, which will remove the regulatory burden for business and reduce the cost for business.

This bill comes in response to the COAG reports of 2006 and 2007 which identified trade measurement as one of the 10 regulatory hot spots in Australia today. The inconsistency associated with this area has acted as an inhibitor to national economic prosperity. Uniform trade measurement will enable greater clarity for both buyers and sellers of products, increase trade confidence and ensure much greater transparency in national trade practices. The government sees this bill as an important step in national economic growth, and it is very much consistent with the government’s agenda of building one seamless national economy.

Initially, looking at this with a fresh set of eyes, one may say that a bill in relation to weights and measures—a trade measurement system—is a little dry and perhaps goes to a little detail. But in actual fact, systems of weights and measures go to the heart of the building of a nation. In this bill we are talking about cooperative federalism. This is an act of trying to create greater consistency across our Federation. When we look at another great federation in the world, the United States of America, we see that adopting a consistent set of weights and measures was one of the very first things that the United States of America did after its formation.

The authority to legislate for national weights and measures is prescribed in their constitution and is afforded to the federal congress. In George Washington’s very first State of the Union address, in January 1790, during his very first administration, he said, ‘Uniformity in the currency, weights and measures of the United States is an object of great importance, and will, I am persuaded, be duly attended to.’ The task of implementing a national system of weights and measures in America in 1790 then fell to the first Secretary of State of the United States—a man who went on to become the third President of the United States—Thomas Jefferson. He regarded the implementation of a national system of weights and measures as being one of his great achievements in his time as Secretary of State. He presented to the congress on 13 July 1790 the plan for establishing uniformity in the coinage, weights and measures of the United States. After years of deliberation, his proposal to adopt the imperial system of weights and measures across the entirety of the United States became, in his own mind, one of his great achievements as Secretary of State. That system is still in use today within the US.

I say that because you cannot overstate the importance of having a consistent set of weights and measures. It represents one of the key pieces of architecture in building a nation. America dealt with this in its first two years of existence and whilst one may think we have been a little slow in this—we are now sitting 108 years after the commencement of our Federation—that would be unfair, because where we have got to at this moment in time represents the culmination of some significant work over 108 years within our Federation to come up with a consistent set of weights and measures. Our initial system was inherited, of course, from England. In 1824, New South Wales commenced research into implementing a standardised system of weights and measures within Australia. Other states soon followed after that, so by the time of Federation it was the opinion of all of our founding fathers, as they were at that time, that it would be advantageous to have a single system of weights and measures in our country. So, like in the United States, it found its way into of our Constitution as a Commonwealth power. Section 51(xv) provides for the Commonwealth to have the power ‘to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to … weights and measures’.

From there we see a significant series of steps under governments from both sides of politics to come to where we are today. In 1926 the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the precursor to what is now the CSIRO, was charged with, among other duties, ‘the testing and standardisation of scientific apparatus and instruments’. Cabinet authorised the creation in 1938 of the National Standards Laboratory, which was built on the grounds of the University of Sydney. In 1947, the Chifley government signed Australia to the Convention du Metre, or the Metre Convention, which made metric measurements legal in Australia. In 1948, again under the Chifley government, the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act came into effect, which created the National Standards Commission. In 1950, under the Menzies government, the National Standards Commission was appointed to administer weights and measures legislation. In 1960, again under Sir Robert Menzies, the National Measurement Act was passed, which is the act which this bill now seeks to amend. That act defined Australia’s measurement and weight standards. It also outlined the roles in this area for the CSIRO, the National Standards Commission and the National Measurement Institute in relation to Australia’s weights and measurement systems.

In 1970 the Metric Conversion Act was passed, which moved Australia from the imperial system to the metric measurement system for all transactions and uses. Despite that history and the appearance of a kind of controlled standardised system across our nation, the staggered implementation of agreed legislation at a state level, as was afforded by the National Measurement Act 1960, gave rise to a number of inconsistencies and mixed interpretations about that act. It is those inconsistencies which this bill seeks to rectify. In response to that situation, the Council of Australian Governments requested the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs develop a recommendation and a timeline for the implementation of a national trade measurement system to deal with that. Acting on the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs’ response in April of last year, COAG agreed that the Commonwealth should assume responsibility in this particular area of trade measurement. Subsequently, a discussion paper was developed and a consultative process undertaken around that discussion paper. This bill that we are debating this evening is the outcome of those processes.

This bill creates a national trade measurement system. It replaces the current state and territory systems, systems that, as I say, have had inconsistency within them and acted as inhibitors to business prosperity. Some of the specific measures of this bill, which are introduced within it, include transitional arrangements between existing state systems and this new national system of trade measurement, and provisions for accuracy and reliability of measurement instruments. There are provisions in this bill regarding the reporting of weights and measurements of prepackaged goods. The bill provides for the appointment of trade measurement inspectors at a Commonwealth level and also provides for licensing arrangements for public weighbridges. There are provisions in the bill that allow individuals and businesses to be licensed to utilise trade measuring equipment.

The bill also introduces an average quantity system which will assist production line packing companies, enabling them to more easily comply with regulations by efficiently demonstrating that they have complied with those regulations. Similar systems to that currently exist internationally—in New Zealand, in Japan, in the EU and, as I said earlier, in the United States of America. Within the bill there are also associated provisions in relation to offences which provide for different types and categories of offences. There are three tiers of related penalties which can be implemented according to circumstances.

As noted by the minister in his second reading speech, there is approximately $400 billion in trade, based on trade measurement systems, that occurs annually in Australia. That represents a very large proportion of our national economy. It is very important that we have this trade based on an accurate system of weights and measurements. This bill will help to meet that objective by strengthening our overall weights and measurement system while also reducing the inconsistency between our jurisdictions and, in doing that, reducing the regulatory burden on business and strengthening individual consumer confidence. As I said earlier, the Rudd government is committed to creating one seamless national economy in Australia. This is a very important step in doing that. By breaking down unnecessary inconsistencies and regulatory burdens that inhibit our growth, this is an important step in that process. I very much commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context