Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008 is not an exciting piece of legislation but it is a piece of legislation that is, all the same, very important and one that I have a strong attachment to from my previous life. It has been around in various guises for many years and it was the previous coalition government that finally got this issue into a shape such that it could be brought to this House.

The objective of the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008 is to introduce a national system of trade measurement. Annually, the trade measurement system in Australia underpins transactions worth more than $400 billion, 75 per cent of which are business to business. While the Commonwealth has constitutional responsibility for weights and measures, the Australian government has responsibility only for defining measurement units and standards, traceability of measurement, and the pattern approval of instruments used for trade or legal purposes.

Inspection and enforcement powers and the setting of the various regulations surrounding trade measurement reside with the various state and territory governments, and therein begins the problem that needed addressing because we then saw eight different sets of trade measurement regimes. This bill will establish a national system of trade measurement to formally commence on 1 July 2010. It will override state based legislation which will eventually be repealed by the various states.

The national trade measurement system will be run by the National Measurement Institute, or NMI, in the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. All current regulation, licensing and enforcement measures surrounding trade measurements will be run by the Australian government from 1 July 2010. This will entail some 240 state based inspectors formally being transferred to the Commonwealth and made APS employees. This is a direct cost-shift from the states, which will no longer have any trade measurement costs. Funding of $31.65 million was provided to the department of innovation for the transition to a national trade measurement system.

The majority of the bill is given over to setting out appropriate offences, penalties and enforcement powers for Commonwealth trade measurement offences. According to the EM and the government, these various clauses reflect those which already exist in the states and territories. There are only two differences of significance. The first is that inspectors will now be able to seize materials other than measuring equipment. Second, the bill explicitly creates a right to silence defence based on the grounds of self-incrimination which did not previously exist.

The bill establishes three levels of offences: fault, strict liability and infringement notices for all offences. Penalties under this bill are most commonly 200 penalty units or around $22,000 for fault offences, 40 penalty units or around $4,400 for strict liability and five penalty units or $550 for infringement notices. These penalties largely reflect existing state legislation.

As well as implementing a national system in Australia for the first time this bill introduces the option for manufacturers to use on a voluntary basis the average quantity system rather than the current minimum quantity system. The AQS is the international standard in trade in prepacked goods and is used in nations that are important trading partners of Australia such as Canada, China, the EU, Japan, Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States of America. The AQS provides a statistical measure that a batch of goods would be on average within statistical normal distribution. Adopting the AQS will increase efficiencies in production and measurement while ensuring that customers remain protected. It will also make Australian prepacked items more accessible to international trade. By making this voluntary, those producers who wish to remain within the current system, for cost or other reasons, will still be able to do so.

It has been a long and winding road to get to the cusp of establishing the national trade measurement system. As I indicated in my opening comments, this has been a very long process. It started to reach its conclusion in April 2007, when I was the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. COAG agreed, under the stewardship of then Prime Minister, John Howard, to establish a national system of trade measurement to be administered by the Commonwealth to start from 1 July 2010. This bill implements that agreement.

That may seem fairly simple as I say it, but establishing a single national system of trade measurement has been on the agenda for more than 20 years. In 1995 under the last Labor government the Kean inquiry was established. That review recommended that the Commonwealth assume full responsibility for trade measurement. But it took until February 2006 for COAG to identify six priority regulatory hot spots, of which trade measurement was one. COAG requested that the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs, which is known as the MCCA, develop a recommendation for a national system of trade measurement. That was subsequently agreed to in April 2007.

There is no doubt that a national system of trade measurement will eliminate common and difficult to quantify business concerns such as legislative differences, the need for multiple licences and different enforcement regimes. It is in this context, though, that we need to understand that in a 2006 report relied on by COAG, the MCCA undertook a series of cost-benefit analyses of implementing a national trade measurement system. Perhaps surprisingly it was unable to quantify significant benefits for the economy, with an overall net positive value to the economy of $5.7 million and with a $16.2 million cost to government and a $22 million cost to business. In view of this, it is disappointing that this government has failed to produce a regulatory impact statement for this bill.

According to advice from the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, the Office of Best Practice Regulation review determined that an RIS was not required as this bill does not change the regulatory burden on business—it merely transfers powers from state and territory governments to the Commonwealth and in some cases the burden is reduced. However, as seen from the cost-benefit analysis that I mentioned earlier, it is not clear that the national trade measurement system will have a significant net positive value. In this context, it is therefore surprising that further analysis was not done through an RIS.

Labor talks a lot about cooperative federalism, yet it tried twice in the 1980s and then again in the 1990s to deliver a national trade measurement system and it failed on both occasions. It took the coalition in government to deliver this historic agreement in 2007. As the minister responsible I am proud of that achievement. Labor is now implementing the coalition’s hard work. Labor has failed to provide a regulatory impact statement on the basis that this bill merely transfers powers. This is disappointing seeing that there is not a clear indication of the benefit that may come from the implementation of this legislation. Nonetheless, the coalition are of the view that the national trade measurement system will be of benefit to all Australians. On the basis of assurances given by the government that this bill does accurately replicate existing state laws and does provide sufficient safeguards to individuals involved in weights and measures, we support this bill.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008. This bill seeks to amend the National Measurement Act 1960 and will establish a single trade measurement system for Australia. The Commonwealth has the responsibility for weights and measures under section 51(xv) of the Constitution. Under the National Measurement Act 1960 the Australian government has responsibility for defining measurement units and standards, traceability of measurement, and pattern approval of instruments used for trade or legal purposes. Inspection and enforcement powers, except for utility meters, reside with the various state and territory governments, as do the setting of various regulations surrounding trade measurement.

The trade measurement system in Australia refers to all activities carried out by government and authorised private sector bodies in the application and enforcement of state and territory trade measurement acts and regulations. The system covers the approval and usage of measuring instruments for trade, such as weight scales, flow meters, tanks and beverage dispensers; the sale of goods by measurement, of quantity or quality; packaging and labelling of prepackaged articles; licensing of operators for public weighbridges; licensing of measuring instrument servicing organisations that have personnel nominated to certify measuring instruments; and inspection of trade measuring instruments and prepackages, and penalties for breaches of the law. Presently each state has had a separate system of measurements which has created a disjointed structure of interstate relations. On 13 April 2007, under the Howard government, COAG agreed to establish a national system of trade measurement, administered by the Commonwealth, from 1 July 2010. This bill implements that agreement. This is a project very dear to my heart. I was sworn in as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources on 27 January 2006. One of my areas of responsibility as part of that portfolio was the National Measurement Institute.

I would like to reflect on the work of the former CEO of the National Measurement Institute, Dr Barry Inglis, who gave me an education in measurement. Having been a fitter and toolmaker apprentice and having studied metrology, I thought I had an understanding of measurement but, after meeting Barry Inglis and going through the whole metric system of measurement, I realised how little I understood. You see, a kilo is not necessarily a kilo. Our kilo, a round sphere, is one of many by which comparative measurements are done. Those measurements of that sphere relate back to a sphere which sits in Paris in a controlled environment. Every so often our sphere has to travel to Paris to be compared against the sphere in Paris. But, on a more local issue, I think about the area of the Hunter and the coal exports that leave our ports. One of the things that were put to me that I had not thought about is how we sell coal. We think about coal in tonnage, but tonnage is not necessarily the unit of measurement, because, if it has been raining, are purchasers paying for water or are they paying for dry coal? And what of the calorific value of the coal? So there is a composite measurement to make sure that we do not undersell Australia or, more importantly, that we do not overcharge for the products we export. We had further discussions about the measurement of time and the measurement of length. Dr Inglis is quite a fascinating gentleman and, when I had listened to his revelation of facts, it brought a deep understanding of how critical people involved in the measurement system are to the economic viability of Australia.

However, the issue of establishing a single national system of trade measurement has been on the agenda for more than 20 years. In 1985 the Department of Science commissioned a review of the trade management system, known as the Scott report. The review recommended that federal weights and measures legislation be amended. However, the Commonwealth, state and territory ministers, with the exception of Western Australia, decided instead that each jurisdiction should implement uniform trade measurement legislation.

In February 2006 the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, identified six priority regulation hot spots where overlapping and inconsistent regulatory regimes were impeding economic activity. Trade measurement was one of those six hot spots. COAG requested the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs develop a recommendation for a national system of trade measurement, which was subsequently agreed to by COAG on 13 April 2007. Labor talks a lot about cooperative federalism, yet it tried twice, in the 1980s and 1990s, to deliver national trade measurement and failed. It took the coalition in government to deliver this historic agreement in 2007. Labor is merely implementing the coalition’s hard work.

I support the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008, which is important when considering Australia’s industry and export potential. It will provide a truly national approach to measurement and will give confidence to buyers and sellers that measurements are accurate. Given that an estimated $400 billion worth of trade based on some kind of measurement takes place in Australia annually, this bill is in the interests of Australia, the trade industry and the farmers and manufacturers in the Paterson electorate that I represent. During the Howard government’s term, we played a key role in increasing prosperity for all Australians through creating internationally competitive and sustainable business opportunities. The National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008 is most certainly an initiative of the Howard coalition government, and I am passionate about having this bill passed as it will benefit all Australians. The benefits will include eradicating costs to businesses that operate across borders, different cost recovery procedures in different jurisdictions, different processes for licensing private sector verifiers of trade measuring instruments and inconsistent advice being provided about trade measurement requirements.

As well as implementing a national system, for the first time in Australia the bill introduces, on a voluntary basis, the option for manufacturers to use the average quantity system rather than the current minimum quantity system. The AQS is the international standard in international trade in prepackaged goods, used in nations including Canada, China, the EU, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the USA. The AQS provides a statistical measure that a batch of goods would be, on average, within statistical normal distribution, while the current minimum quantity system and its associated testing regimes require many producers to overfill their products in order to meet the minimum quantity requirements. Adopting AQS would increase efficiencies in production and measurement while ensuring consumers remain protected. It would also make Australian prepacked items more accessible to international trade—and making it voluntary enables those producers who wish to remain with the current system, for cost or other reasons, to do so.

On 14 November 2006, as the Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Tourism and Resources, I opened the new National Measurement Institute laboratory in Western Australia. The NMI laboratory had been based in Cottesloe, Western Australia, since 1954 and was relocated to the Australian Resources Research Centre in Kensington, WA. The relocation of the NMI to the ARRC and the refocusing of the NMI’s WA business plan and activities towards the needs of the resources industry were undertaken within the broader context of maximising the return to Australia from the investment in the NMI. Western Australia is the leading exporting state in Australia, accounting for more than 25 per cent of Australia’s total exports. Resources and commodities are major components of these exports. The relocation to the ARRC provided the NMI with the opportunity to build on its relationships with the main players in the resources industry. The then CEO of the National Measurement Institute, Dr Barry Inglis, oversaw the relocation. Ernest—also known as Ernie—Bartels, a dedicated laboratory analyst, unveiled the plaque on that day. The NMI’s vital role in Australia’s future cannot be understated and it gives confidence to buyers and sellers that measurements are accurate and can be relied upon.

I have seen firsthand the valuable work done by the NMI and support the bill’s intention to streamline this system. However, I do raise a number of concerns regarding the administration of the bill and the cost shifting from the states to the Commonwealth. Under this new agreement, the Commonwealth will take responsibility for the existing 140 state trade measurement inspectors and officials, as well as state based trade measurement instruments of a yet to be defined value. Administration of the national trade measurement system will be the responsibility of the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, with powers exercised by or under the delegation of the secretary. The administrative functions will be implemented by a division of the department, the National Measurement Institute.

Funding of $31.65 million was provided to the department of innovation for the transition to a national trade measurement system and its first year of operation, 2007-08 to 2010-11. The bill provides for ongoing funding of $23.653 million, which will be provided from 2011-12. This is a direct cost shift from the states, who will no longer have any trade measurement costs. These costs, which I understand are significant, will now be directly borne by the taxpayers of Australia.

The bill proposes that, from 1 July 2010, NMI will maintain a national system to licence appropriately qualified businesses and individuals to verify compliance of measuring instruments, and one licence will be valid for use across Australia. The bill further proposes that the current inconsistent fee regimes will be replaced by one licence fee based on cost recovery principles. I understand that the processes for licensees to report on verification of trade measuring instruments will be unified and streamlined. Licensees will be encouraged to use internet based submission of data to achieve best productivity, but other forms of submission will be provided for. The bill provides that NMI will conduct compliance monitoring activities through a national network of inspectors who will carry out marketplace audit and inspection activities like those currently carried out by the states and territories. As of 1 July 2010, the inspectors will be trade measurement staff who have transferred from state and territory employment.

The bill sets out that, under the national trade measurement system, the compliance strategy will employ a variety of mechanisms. I am told that emphasis will be placed on informing traders, licensees and the public about the practices that ensure fair measure and on securing compliance through education. Further, minor noncompliance, typically because a trader was unaware of an inappropriate measurement practice, will initially be dealt with by a warning. I am advised that continuing offences or failure to heed an official warning will result in an infringement notice and escalation in risk based monitoring and that intentional, persistent and serious offences will lead to the most severe prosecutions.

I have previously raised concerns about which court or tribunal has jurisdiction to enforce and which court will be the appellate court. I am told the enforcement options will depend on the circumstances of the offences and that the court used will be a matter for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. Further, the appellate court will depend on the jurisdiction in which the original court proceedings were launched. Under proposed section 19K, jurisdiction is conferred on the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court in respect of enforceable undertakings and injunctions.

I have also raised my concern about the need for arms-length separation of the enforcement and compliance arms of NMI itself, which I believe is necessary for the successful implementation of this bill. I am apprehensive to support having the standards and enforcement in the same body. Whilst I can appreciate that the functions of inspectors in checking measuring instruments require technical skills and support from specialised laboratories which are linked to NMI, I am uneasy about the actual operation of this system and the confidence the industry will have, given the perceived potential conflict of interest. There will need to be—pardon the pun—a number of checks and balances in place to ensure a smooth transition to this new scheme and due diligence applied to the transparency of the operational system. I will be taking a watching brief on this issue into the future and look forward to the implementation of a system that benefits all Australians.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008. The National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008 amends the National Measurement Act 1960 to introduce a national system of trade measurement based on the current trade measurement systems of the states and territories. The National Measurement Institute within the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research has responsibility for implementing the national system of trade measurement and for the ongoing operation of the new system, which is due to commence on 1 July 2010. The funding provided for the transition to a national system of trade measurement in its first year of operation is $28.65 million in 2008-09, with ongoing annual funding of $23.65 million from 2010-11.

Trade measurement involves the exchange of goods at a price determined by volume or weight or other types of measurement. A robust system of trade measurement underpins confidence in the trading transactions in our economy. The new national trade measurement system will replace state and territory systems. The bill incorporates key features of the existing state and territory laws, which are based on model legislation. We take for granted that a litre of milk is a litre of milk, that a kilo of sugar is a kilo of sugar, that a scale is always correct and that a stated portion is a stated portion. We do so because we trust our system of measurements. We trust the system because governments have laws to ensure that the description matches the product therein. Whether we buy a tonne of topsoil from the local landscaping business or a 50-gram Mars bar, we rightfully expect that what is on the label is what we actually receive. When we fill up our car and pay for 30 litres of fuel, we expect that we have received 30 litres of fuel. We cannot afford to have uncertainty in this regard, and with this bill the government is ensuring even greater certainty and confidence in our measurements regime.

This is something that the federal and state governments through COAG have highlighted as an issue of great importance. I want to stress that this is of true great importance. Under the current system, each state and territory governs their own measurement legislation. The Australian government is introducing this bill to provide a single law for the entire nation. This is something that we constantly hear as we go around the country talking to our constituents. I know that many of the constituents of Dawson are transient people from other parts of Australia, and I am asked, for example, ‘Why are the laws different in WA than they are in Queensland?’ So this idea of a single law for the entire nation has a lot of value, because it is about continuity. Continuity is efficiency, and efficiency is cost saving. And cost-saving efficiency equals productivity, which ultimately adds to the bottom line of this nation’s economy. So when we consider this, we need to consider that requiring businesses operating across state borders to comply with different state and territory laws increases compliance costs and is totally unnecessary.

In my electorate of Dawson, having a system in place that provides for accurate, nationwide measurements is of absolute critical importance for the exports of coking coal, for raw and refined sugar, and for meat. If there were anything other than absolute certainty in the measurements, it would erode confidence and our sterling reputation in the market. The new national trade measurement system will benefit businesses by reducing cost. Firms that trade across borders will only need to implement one set of practices to meet trade measurement requirements. So it is logical.

Accurate measurements give confidence to buyers and sellers that measurements are accurate and this reduces transaction cost in each trade. This regulatory system brings extra confidence to trade and commerce in Australia. Imagine how onerous it would be if traders had to prove to every customer that they had weighed each purchase accurately. Similarly, imagine how difficult it would be for a packing house to prove to each purchaser that their bag of flour was filled with the stated amount without the confidence that good measurement laws provide?

The bill inserts general trade measurement provisions into the act, which will provide the legislative framework for the national trade measurement system. This includes six key points: (1) provisions to ensure the accuracy and reliability of trade measuring instruments such as scales, fuel dispensers and weighbridges; (2) provisions to ensure prepacked articles contain the stated quantities; (3) the appointment of trade measurement inspectors and their powers—replicating the current powers of state and territory trade measurement inspectors; (4) licensing provisions for the verifiers of measuring instruments and the operation of public weighbridges; (5) provision for private sector firms or individuals to be licensed to verify trade measuring instruments; and, finally, (6) transitional provisions to ensure a seamless transfer from the states and territories to a national system.

There are, of course, offence provisions in the bill. The offence provisions in the bill will apply in a wide variety of circumstances. The bill provides for different categories of offences in relation to particular conduct, for a range of responses depending on the circumstances of a particular suspected offence, and for three tiers of penalties. The new national system will continue to ensure the accuracy and reliability of traditional trade measuring instruments such as scales, fuel dispensers and weighbridges. However, it provides the flexibility for new technologies to be introduced as businesses or consumers require additional assurance.

In conclusion, the bill puts in place a law that replaces the current fragmented situation in which each state and territory has a separate system, with a single national system. No clearer can the need for this be seen than in the electorate of Dawson, because in the electorate of Dawson we know how important it is to have a unified Australian system for coal, sugar and even within our tourism market as well. By introducing this law, the Rudd Labor government is proving it is serious about creating a seamless national economy unhampered by unnecessary duplication, overlap and differences in regulation. In particular, we are proving that we are determined to remove those inconsistencies that create unnecessarily complex and costly burdens on business. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.