HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-12-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT AND REPEAL (TRADE MEASUREMENT) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 October 2009. Page 4533.)

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (12:39): I indicate I am the lead speaker and probably the only speaker from this side on this bill. The opposition thanks the government for the briefing on this bill and, as a result of the briefing, we will not be supporting the bill.

Our understanding of this bill is as follows. In April 2007, the Rann government signed a COAG agreement to move to a national system of weights and measures administration. The state government advises that the commonwealth government has always held the power under the Commonwealth Constitution to instigate a weights and measures legislation and bureaucracy but has chosen not to utilise it. My understanding from the briefing is that the 13 state public servants, the building and the assets (that is, the testing equipment, etc.) will be transferred to the commonwealth and that the building and the assets will be transferred at no cost.

The state government understands that the commonwealth will be constructing a new building in three years. One assumes that the commonwealth can off-load the building that we are giving it or sell the assets that we are giving it at some time in the future. As a result of this change, the commonwealth will not be charging for testing, so it says. Currently, the state government does charge for testing, so we acknowledge that there would be a small saving to business through not having the test fees.

How long the commonwealth will not charge the test fees for is unknown to the opposition. It was requested of the government. and the answer was that the government does not know itself. So, while the commonwealth has committed to no test fee at the moment, what a future decision of the commonwealth government might be, who knows. Licensed repairers who are currently licensed with the state at a cost of $216 per annum, plus a one-off $91 application fee and a $560 per person fee will now be licensed by the commonwealth, yet the cost and the structure of the licence is unknown to the state and unknown to the opposition.

The estimated saving to the state government is around $320,000 a year, the loss in revenue is around $560,000 and the saving in expenditure is alleged to be $880,000—although one assumes that the 13 state public servants will be either transferred back into other agencies at the state level and money spent on their salaries here or transferred to the commonwealth. What type of new inspection regime will be implemented by the federal government is not known by the state and therefore not known by the opposition. We do not know whether it will be a more rigorous inspection regime or a less rigorous inspection regime.

What new penalties will be applied to businesses under the commonwealth model is not known to the state and not known to the opposition. We do not know whether it will be a more aggressive penalty regime or a less aggressive penalty regime. What level of penalty will apply under the commonwealth legislation is not known to the state. We do not know whether businesses will have a higher penalty regime or a lower penalty regime.

In relation to consumer affairs complaints, advice to the state opposition is that they will not be handled by the state's consumer affairs organisation because it is no longer a state agency, but the state government is unaware whether there will be a federal mechanism for dealing with consumer complaints.

The short answer is this: the opposition asked all those questions of the government in its briefing and all the answers that I have given to the house were the answers given to the opposition as per the briefing. No further information has come to the opposition to clarify any of those questions. So, on the basis that the opposition has answers to none of those questions about how this system is going to work, we are not supporting the legislation, because we are not convinced about the detail of the bill. There may be a good principled reason why you might want to transfer weights and measures federally after 180 years of states running it (why, suddenly, the feds need to run it), but that has not been argued to the opposition. We do not know the inspection regime, we do not know the penalty regime, we do not know the fee structure and we do not know the human complaints structure.

How this system is actually going to work federally, no-one knows; or, if they do know, they certainly did not brief opposition members when we were asking our questions and they have not forwarded any information to us. Some may think it a matter of simply flicking off to the commonwealth all the state powers in relation to trade measurement, but the opposition takes the position that, unless the state government can convince us that there is a fairer and better system or some argument of benefit to the state to do so, we will not do it. The opposition, given that essentially this is a repeal and referral bill, is not moving any amendments. If the bill is defeated, the system stays as it is. If the government wins the day, and wins the referral, it is simply a leap into the unknown because no-one can tell us how the system will work, and that is regrettable.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:44): I guess that few members go to bed at night reading the intricate detail of the National Measurement Act 1960, which is a commonwealth act. As the member for Davenport said, for a long time the commonwealth has had the power to regulate and control weights and measures, but it has also taken a long time for the activities to be transferred to the commonwealth, and that is what I understand this bill is primarily about.

People might not think that this measure is important, but everything we do in our daily activities is affected by weights and measures of one kind or another, and that includes whether you buy a litre of petrol or a kilogram of sugar. As I understand it, it includes equipment used for radiotherapy, police speed detection devices and a whole range of things that ultimately have to be traceable back to the National Measurement Act. Under that umbrella is the national testing authority (NATA), which is responsible for ensuring that standards are met.

We take these things for granted, but from what I am told by lawyers (and I am not a lawyer), in some respects South Australia is deficient in terms of meeting some of those standards. There are international standards to which Australia is a signatory, and there are also the Australian Standards, which relate to nearly everything we do in terms of building codes, swimming pools and so on. There is more than one standard in relation to radar cameras and, as I have found out, there are some in relation to lidar devices.

A constituent, who is a former head of weights and measures in Queensland, put to me that South Australia has been in breach of some of these legal provisions for some time. I know for a fact that the police laboratory here has not been accredited for four years or more and only recently regained accreditation after the equipment was moved from Sturt Police Station to Netley and some of the staff left.

People who are very competent—such as Les Felix (who is a police calibration expert who advises New South Wales Police and others) and Grad Zivkovic (who is a road safety engineer), and professors of physics at Adelaide University—have some concern about whether some of the things the government is doing in terms of the use of its equipment, particularly in the police department, but not only there, and whether or not they meet the appropriate standards.

This is not simply a minor issue that should be pushed through. I think members really need to know whether or not the state government, through all its agencies, is committed to upholding the appropriate standards, whether they be internationally agreed, whether they be Australian standards or whether they be requirements under the National Measurement Act and through the national testing agency because, if you go for radiotherapy, you want to know that the machine is properly calibrated and gives the correct dose, and that is just one example.

This is a short bill, and I think that, as the member for Davenport indicated, more explanation is required before the parliament simply says yes.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Families and Communities, Minister for Northern Suburbs, Minister for Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability) (12:49): As members opposite have mentioned, COAG agreed to this responsibility reverting back to the commonwealth, seeking an implementation date of 1 July next year. The central administration of the trade measurement is expected to produce benefits for businesses, consumers and government, and a single policy platform would allow the government to provide a framework that will provide for consistent and timely adoption of single set techniques and processes for industry. Requiring compliance with a single set of requirements nationwide is likely to result in cost reductions and efficiency gains. So, basically, around the nation we will have uniform requirements as far as trade measurement is concerned.

The agreement involves the commonwealth using existing state and territory staff and infrastructure to continue performing trade measurement duties. Here in South Australia, 13 staff are employed in trade measurement. Each staff member has received an offer of employment from the commonwealth on the basis that they are employed by the South Australian government up to 30 June 2010. I understand that at this stage 11 staff have indicated they are likely to accept the commonwealth offer of employment. However, those who do not wish to transfer will be redeployed.

Under the COAG agreement, the commonwealth will fully fund the ongoing administration of trade measurement, as I said, from 1 July. The decision also agreed that the states and territories will transfer existing trade measurement testing and other scientific equipment to the commonwealth at no cost. That is not the property, about which I think the member for Davenport had some concern, but in fact the equipment that is used for testing. I understand that that has a depreciated book value of about $971,000, but the majority of these assets are specific to trade measurement functions. So, there will be some historic trade measurement assets that we will retain but those assets that are used on a regular basis to undertake the work will be transferred to the commonwealth.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: At no cost?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: At no cost. In relation to the property, the commonwealth has indicated that it will lease the current premises at Thebarton for a maximum of three years. The lease will be on current market terms and will be between the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure and the commonwealth. The commonwealth may relocate to new purpose-built premises in the future but this will be at no cost to the state, and the land and premises at Thebarton will remain the property of the state.

In relation to the fees and licensing, for those traders who use measuring instruments in the course of their business, there will be significant cost savings. Under the new regime, traders will no longer be charged to have their equipment tested by the commonwealth. The Department of Trade and Economic Development confirms that this will save businesses over $600,000 a year. The commonwealth will take over the licensing function and has indicated that it will adopt a full cost recovery model for licensing.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: That's right; full cost recovery.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: That is right. Instrument repairers and weighbridge operators who are holders of current South Australian licences will be grandfathered into the system and will not be required to pay a licence fee to the commonwealth until the licence is due to be renewed. Those holding licences in more than one jurisdiction will be required to obtain a national licence at the expiry of the first licence. So, for those people who operate across states there is likely to be a significant saving, because in fact they will only require a national licence and not a licence in every state in which they operate. I understand that there are about 50 licensed repairers in South Australia and about 50 licensed businesses that operate public weighbridges.

With respect to the budget savings, commencing in 2010-11, the impact on the budget will be a loss of $566,000 in revenue that is currently collected by OCBA, but this is offset by expenditure savings of $879,000, which represents the salaries and wages and goods and services expenditure that is expected to be saved, resulting in a net saving to the state government of $313,000 per annum.

There are no anticipated changes to the inspection regime under the commonwealth's administration of trade measurement. The inspection regime is expected to improve strategically since testing will now be performed on a national basis. The new national system is based on the trade measurement regulation currently administered by the states and territories under the uniform trade measurement legislation, and the commonwealth has committed itself to ensure continuity of service and the maintenance of existing service standards provided by the states and territories.

The commonwealth anticipates that it will investigate complaints in the same manner in which the state now deals with these complaints. On average approximately 300 complaints are received each year. While the bill repeals the trade measurement legislation, it also provides for certain transitional provisions which are reasonable, appropriate and necessary for finalising any outstanding administrative or enforcement matters at the time of the transfer.

The bill enables information associated with the administration of the trade measurements to be provided to the commonwealth. This will allow the commonwealth to establish systems as soon as practicable so as to facilitate a seamless transition to a national regime with minimal, if any, adverse impacts on the community.

On 1 July 2010 all states' and territories' trade measurement law will become redundant once the new commonwealth law commences. I seek support of this house for the bill to facilitate a smooth transition to a national trade measurement system.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.


[Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:00]


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT