Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak on the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2013 I note that the government is arguing that the principal reason for the introduction of this legislation is to correct deficiencies, obviously identified during the first two years of operation of the national trade measurement system. Assuming that that truly is the intent, the coalition is prepared to provide support for the bill. On the face of what is being presented to us, through the bill and the associated explanatory memorandum, we do not have a problem with the six sets of changes listed on pages 4 and 5 of the explanatory memorandum, and if the changes that the government proposes to legislate through this bill do genuinely overcome a number of unforeseen problems, and in fact improve the practical operation of the act, then naturally those are outcomes that we support and that are completely uncontroversial to us.

However, I do want to point out that it is now nearly three years since the introduction of the national trade measurement system and it is therefore something of a concern that we are still having to consider multiple changes to the provisions that accompanied its introduction—not to mention that this is not the first time that this has happened. But I suppose we should not be particularly surprised about that! When the coalition asked very specifically, through a Senate estimates question on notice in 2011, about what problems and unforeseen consequences had arisen following the transfer of state responsibilities to the national level through the new trade measurement system, we did not receive a clear answer to that question at all. Instead, we got what now seems to pass as a largely meaningless, stock-standard estimates answer from this government that completely avoided the question, albeit that I suppose we should probably have felt privileged to have even received an answer at all, given that, from the most recent estimates round, there are something like 150 out of 184 questions that still have not been answered after around three months of waiting. And it is not as if the government has been preoccupying itself and the bureaucracy with good policy and a vision for this country. But hopefully the Australian people will be relieved of the burden of the worst administration at the national level since Federation.

But going back specifically to the question at hand, that answer back in 2011 to question B1-85 was: 'A report on the transition to a national scheme has been prepared by the NMI in consultation with other Australian, state and territory officials. The report, which covers all aspects of the transition, was released in July'—that is 2011—'and is available on the website at www.measurement.gov.au.' In other words, the department and the government were not interested in going anywhere near answering the direct question of whether there were specific problems with the rollout of the system. Reading between the lines of that answer, it was not hard to draw the conclusion that the problems clearly were being experienced at that time, but it is only much later down the track that we are learning exactly what they are. It is very poor that the government was not up-front with us back then—again, no surprise. If there are further problems that have not been identified as part of this bill or a predecessor version at the end of 2010, now is the time for the government to finally stop hiding from scrutiny and publicly spell out some of these issues. And it should be very clear about how and why some elements of the system have not been working.

In closing, let me restate my earlier comment that the coalition will support changes that genuinely eradicate unforeseen problems and improve the practical operation of the act. But I am increasingly concerned, each time a bill such as this is presented to the House, that we can be completely sure that that is the case or that there is not a range of other problems that are also still waiting to be addressed even after three years.

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

I rise this morning with pleasure to support the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2013, which deals with an area of our economy that does not get much newsprint attention but that is a deeply important area for the way Australia works. I will deal with the specifics of the bill first. This is a bill that deals with a number of technical amendments to the National Measurement Act, specifically through clarifying the offence and noncompliance approaches associated with ensuring the application of particular offences being directed to appropriate persons. To clarify, at the moment it is an offence to adjust or repair an instrument in a way that affects its measurement accuracy without also obliterating its verification mark. This amendment will separate the offences so that the offences will apply separately to the person who carries out the adjustment and to the person who causes the adjustment to be made. It is a technical measure but important nevertheless.

The bill will also better empower trade measurement inspectors so that they are able to deal with and resolve minor issues by providing, under the act, 28-day periods in which traders can resolve the issues that have been raised by the inspectors. It also empowers inspectors to deal with vehicles, for example, and have them moved to particular locations. There are also a number of definitional alterations in this bill. For example, the definition of 'use for trade' will be amended to embrace the determination of fuel tax credits under circumstances to be prescribed in regulations following consultation amongst the Treasury, the ATO and the National Measurement Institute. Also, the definitions of 'reference standard of measurement', 'certified reference material' and 'certified measuring instrument' will be altered to bring them into alignment and to clarify the period for which the standards are in effect.

Having articulated the significance of this particular bill in the context of our framework around national measurement, I will make the point that this occurs as a result of a COAG process that was undertaken by this Labor government to simplify the measurement framework of this country by taking eight trade measurement systems that used to exist under the state systems and bringing them down into one. Trade measurement is at the heart of $4 billion worth of trade in Australia's economy every year. As we have sought to reduce regulation in this country, sought to reduce red tape and sought to harmonise our system of laws, this has been an unsung measure but one that has brought enormous benefit to people throughout the economy so that they are now dealing with one system of trade measurement throughout Australia. The amendments today are important technical amendments associated with that bigger push that was achieved back in 2009.

Weights and measures are at the foundation of our economy. In this context I would also like to say something about the National Measurement Institute, the agency that oversees trade measurement in this country and our system of weights and measures. The National Measurement Institute is the custodian of deep science. For example, it is the National Measurement Institute that houses Australia's three atomic clocks, which are Australia's contribution to the very definition of time in this world. It is the National Measurement Institute that houses Australia's kilogram, which is based on the original kilogram in Paris and is the fundamental measurement of weight in Australia. It is interesting to note that the measurement of a kilogram is the only significant measure that exists in the world today that is still based on an artefact—that is, on a reference point of the original kilogram. There is an international effort to try to redefine mass based on a constant of the universe, such as the speed of light. In this case a couple of approaches are going on, one of which is to try to define precisely Avogadro's constant.

It is all very scientific, and it is all work that is being undertaken by the National Measurement Institute and which forms part of the international collaborative effort to try to redefine the very nature whereby we define mass. If you go to the laboratories of the NMI you see dedicated Australian scientists undertaking fantastic work, and you realise the significance of that entity as well as just how important the National Measurement Institute is to the science infrastructure of our country. You can see it in an esoteric way, if I can put it like that, when you look at the person—and I met him—who goes to work every day to try to work out Avogadro's constant; he has a great job. And you see it in the way, as this bill talks about, the National Measurement Institute oversees trade measurement, which is absolutely fundamental to our economy. When you go to the supermarket and you measure the weight of your vegetables, the weight of your apples or the weight of your bananas and when you go to the petrol station and take out a volume of fuel, all of these involve measurement instruments that form part of our trade measurement system. That is what we are talking about when we say we have unified all those systems of trade measurement into one national system, and that is what this particular amendment seeks to do in relation to that.

In commending this particular bill to the House, I would also like to commend the harmonisation of trade measurement laws in this country that has been undertaken by this Labor government. I would also very much like to commend the fantastic work undertaken by the National Measurement Institute. I commend the bill to the House.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always good to follow on from my parliamentary colleague the shadow minister for innovation, industry and science—who, I might add, was in Wagga Wagga on 11 April at a manufacturing forum with business leaders of the region discussing their problems, their concerns and their issues. It is always important that parliamentary secretaries, shadow ministers and indeed ministers hear the words from the mouths of those business leaders who—let's face it—are the engine room of the Australian economy. The National Measurement Amendment Bill 2013 might not sound important in the scheme of things but indeed it is, because, as consumers, we need to know, when we go to the supermarket or when we go to a hardware store, that what we are purchasing is in fact the right size and does in fact weigh the right amount. It is very, very important.

This bill makes a series of uncontroversial changes to the National Measurement Act 1960 to correct deficiencies identified during the first two years of operation of the national trade measurement system. The amendments will provide discretion for trade measurement inspectors to permit measuring instruments which do not meet the strict requirements of the act to remain in use for a limited time of up to 28 days, provided there will be no material detriment to any affected person, generally the consumer. It will introduce a new offence to ensure trade measurement inspectors can access business vehicles to undertake inspections in accordance with the intent of the legislation; clarify the offence of not obliterating an existing verification mark if an instrument is repaired or adjusted in such a way as would affect its performance; clarify the definition of 'use for trade' to include instruments which may be used to determine a tax, regardless of whether it is the imposition of a tax or determination of a tax credit; ensure that where goods are purchased based on measurement the purchaser either can see the result of the measurement or is provided with a written statement identifying the actual measurement; make other minor and technical amendments to facilitate the working of the act; and importantly, and finally, allow trade measurement inspectors to carry out investigations in public areas without first announcing their presence to the proprietors of the business.

On that last point I add a word of caution. We have seen all too often in the past that sometimes people—bureaucrats, even, dare I say, union officials—could barge into businesses and workplaces around the country and halt production in order to carry out their business. Often this was with good intent, but all too often we saw business people's production stopped and people downing tools because these people were on their premises without the business owner's knowledge. I air a word of caution that that provision of this bill will need to be spelt out very correctly and finely in the final detail of the bill to ensure that we do not see bureaucrats, bovver boys and people without good intent coming into business places and stopping production just to ensure that they tick their boxes and fill out their time sheets to make sure that they are doing what they are doing. We need to make sure that businesses are advised and are aware. Obviously, we cannot afford to have dodgy businesses and dodgy operators selling people materials that are underweight or under measure, but we certainly need to ensure that business is able to carry on with the great job that it does on behalf of this nation.

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all of the members for their contributions to the debate on this amendment bill concerning national measurements. The government is very pleased with the progress of the national system of trade measurement since it came into operation in July 2010. Obviously, that was an important and common-sense reform, because moving from eight trade measurement systems to one national system is an important business regulation reform. It makes it simpler for business and more straightforward and sound for consumers.

The advent of the new national system has removed the previous inconsistencies in trade measurement and has reduced costs to companies operating nationally. The National Measurement Amendment Bill 2013 will amend the National Measurement Act 1960 in order to correct some minor issues identified since the commencement of the trade measurement provisions under the Commonwealth legislation, so that the bill, as we have heard in a number of the contributions and in the second reading speech that I gave in introducing the bill, will facilitate the work of trade measurement inspectors in dealing with cases of noncompliance with the act. It will clarify the controls an inspector can use to ensure that businesses do comply with the act and its regulations and how the inspector can go about determining whether a business is compliant or not, under the act. There will in fact be greater flexibility in allowing businesses to resolve minor infringements in a reasonable time frame, which addresses the concerns raised by some of the previous speakers on the other side. This will especially benefit remote communities with few retail outlets, without detriment to consumers. It allows more flexibility in the sorts of constituencies that the previous speaker was referring to.

The bill will also amend several minor or technical definitions of the act so as to clarify its interpretation and streamline the operation of some of its provisions. In summary, the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2013 brings legislative certainty to aspects of the trade measurement inspector's role. It will increase the effectiveness of the operation of the national system of trade measurement and its flexibility. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.