Measurement in everyday life

3.2.1.a. How effectively have you been guided by this provision in the Act?
The WIAA finds the Act effective and important to provide certainty to traceability.

3.2.1.b. What alternative mechanisms or frameworks could be used to determine whether a measurement is being made correctly with reference to an ALUM?
There is no real alternative from the current frame work and mechanisms. There should be no alternative mechanisms or frameworks.

By allowing NMI to have true governance on the countries measurements. This would provide many benefits and efficiencies compared to using multiple government departments or agencies. NMI's (National Measurement Institute) reach should be extended beyond Trade applications to include all areas of measurement.

The Government needs to review the risk profile of Non trade applications and the effect on the public (e.g. Medical, Health & Wellbeing, Safety, any measurement that may lead to litigation) the main benefit would be to protect the public safety and wellbeing.

4.2.1.a. What elements of the measurement framework are currently too prescriptive?
We as an Association believe the current legislation has the right balance and is not too prescriptive.

4.2.1.b. How and where should flexibility be incorporated to ensure the framework is both robust but also adaptable into the future?
To prevent confusion and misunderstanding rules and regulations must be clear in regard to measuring instruments. An example would be, when introducing new technologies and designing calibration techniques, the creation of NITP‘s should be in consultation with Industry. Alternatively where this is not possible, flexibility could be incorporated within the Pattern Approval of the instrument after thorough testing by NMI.

4.2.1.c. How could a principles-based approach be implemented for traceability of measurements of physical quantities?
For weighing applications we do not believe principles based approach is practical. Weighing is absolute and requires definitive results to maintain Consumer confidence.

4.2.2.a. What legal assurances should be in place to provide confidence in self-calibrating devices?
Any self-calibrating device should be Pattern Approved by NMI. In addition mandatory testing periods for traceability of the built-in reference to ensure it maintains accuracy.

4.2.2.b. In what circumstances should inbuilt references for self-verifying instruments be traceable?
All trade circumstances, High risk environments, and any circumstances required to give legal assurances in litigation.

4.2.2.c. How would verification of built-in references assure traceability for self-calibrating devices? What should this approach look like?
The test mass or calibration mechanism used for the self-calibration weighing instrument should undergo periodic calibration against a verified reference standard using an authorised Verifying Authority.

4.2.2.d. How important is it for the user to know whether a manufacturer’s claims that devices are self-calibrating are supported and accepted by the legal framework? Please give an example.
It is very important that the self-calibrating device has local pattern approval and falls under the legal framework, to provide the user confidence in the instrument.

4.2.2.e. What should be the government’s role in assuring traceability of built-in references to self-calibrating instruments?
Pattern approval of all such devices and follow up with a conformity to type (compliance) program.

4.2.3.a. Is the current standards and conformance infrastructure meeting your traceability needs?
Yes, all works well.

4.2.3.b. Are you or your customers concerned about security, authenticity and integrity of measurement results associated with new technologies and their source of traceability?
Yes.
An example: Measurement data that is wirelessly transferred could be manipulated unless encrypted.

4.2.3.c. How can confidence in measurements based on new and advanced technologies be supported by the measurement framework ?
In respect to weighing devices the equipment needs to be pattern approved locally.
The current M7 POS Approval is a good example of how to achieve confidence in new and advanced technologies by supplementing the measurement framework.

4.2.3.d. Have you encountered any barriers to adopting new technologies arising from the current measurement law framework?
No. However, delays in Pattern Approval process due to lack of staff in the areas of weighing technology within NMI does create barriers to bring product to market in a timely manner.

4.2.4.a. Does verification or certification appropriately deliver on assuring traceability and confidence in measurement results for measurements used for trade and other legal purposes?
Yes through the NITPs, the trade measurement system is well developed. Further improvement could be gained by introducing mandatory reverification periods.

4.2.4.b. What other approaches or mechanisms could be used to assure traceability and provide confidence in measurement results?
While the WIAA are confident in the current system for our weighing industry, we believe it would be improved by the introduction of mandatory reverification periods.

4.2.4.c. Does your industry face measurement traceability problems? If so, what is the impact of these problems?
No. The current system has evolved over many years, providing traceability to standards and results are absolute.

4.2.5.a. In what additional ways could the legislation be amended to support and enable traceability relating to physical quantities?
Weighing instruments could be operational for over 30 years. Introduction of mandatory reverification periods will ensure the constitutional rights of all Australians in equity of trade and ensure the instrument maintains weighing accuracy over this lifespan.

4.2.5.b. What costs are incurred by your business as a result of the current requirements?
WIAA members have invested heavily (e.g. Service Licence, Pattern Approvals, Mass purchase & verifications, Staff Verifier training, Vehicles etc.) supporting the trade measurement system for decades and understand this is a requirement to keep a confident and strong trade measurement system.

4.2.5.c. How could current arrangements be made more efficient?
Delays in pattern approval and Verifier assessments cost our members financially as we are not able to bring products and services to market in a timely manner. Providing NMI with more resources to allow quick turnaround time.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

WIAA members have invested heavily (e.g. Service Licence, Pattern Approvals, Mass purchase & verifications, Staff Verifier training, Vehicles and assessment etc.) supporting the trade measurement system for decades and understand this is a requirement to keep a confident and strong trade measurement system.
The benefits are the current Regulation and Act allows our Members to follow an already robust and reliable measurement system.
The provision of NIPT’s ensures consistency of verification testing, these documents were developed over the pass 20 years with close cooperation between industry and the regulator.

Yes, the WIAA believe it does strike the right balance, as all in the supply chain have a common point of reference.

Measuring instruments used for trade purposes should obviously be covered, but it should also be extended to and include areas where there is risk of injury, death or litigation, areas such as maritime, pharmaceutical, environmental, health and wellbeing should be included. An inclusions and exclusions reference which sits outside the Act, would be beneficial and allow for future changes to be adopted easily.

Any new technology should be reviewed to check the suitability for use in Australia and have a local approval number prior to being used.
There will be areas where the risk of rapid uptake may have minimal impact and others where the risk is far greater, so risk assessment should be a consideration to provide some flexibility in areas of low risk. Flexibility could be incorporated within the Pattern Approval of the instrument after thorough testing by NMI.

It is taking too long to process pattern approvals, which is holding up business more resources need to be added in this area.
There is a need to increase policing of instruments out in the field which have not been verified for many years.
Currently there is no requirement to have an instrument re-verified (Other than Public Weigh bridges) after the initial verification. Some instruments have been in use for over 30 years. At present the responsibility lies with the instrument owner to ensure their instrument maintains weighing accuracy without external audit. In the vast majority of cases instrument owners are not qualified and do not have the means to ensure the instrument is weighing within Maximum Permissible Error (MPE) as required by Law.
Introducing mandatory reverification periods will allow an external audit of the instrument and provide consumer confidence.
When complex instruments are out of calibration, there can be a large detriment to either the consumer or the owner.
Verification periods would address consumer confidence.

As an association our members have found pattern approval effective and NMI has identified issues during the pattern approval process that they have not identified themselves. However, members incur long delays to receive approval of equipment due to lack of resources at NMI. This causes delays in getting product to market impacting our members financially. Bolstering the NMI resources in pattern approval to improve time delays will be beneficial.
In the case of allowing flexibility for new technology, this should be reviewed by NMI and added to the certificate of approval, if deemed acceptable.

For Mass and weighing instrument we find the current Certification and Verification process very suitable. This also levels the playing field for competition in the marketplace allowing instrument owners to get the same level of product & service regardless of which company they choose to engage. Further improvement could be gained by introducing mandatory reverification periods and policing from NMI.

Mandatory reverification periods are currently applied to public weighbridges and should be extended to any trade approved scales and high-risk non-trade environment (e.g. Health, Medical, Safety, Tax Collection, Law enforcement leading to litigation). Weighing instruments are sensitive devices subjected to physical forces and can be out of Maximum Permissible Error (MPE required by Law) by the act of relocation or overloading the scale.
As an example, with online sales of weighing instruments it is more important than ever to introduce mandatory reverification periods, simply relocating an instrument can cause it to be out of Maximum Permissible Error (MPE) from first day of trade due to variable gravitational differences. These instruments could be used in the field for 30+ years without ever being externally audited or re-verified.

Yes. However further improvement can be gained by the introduction of mandatory reverification periods for trade instruments. Commonwealth countries like Canada trialled abolishing mandatory reverification and have recently reintroduced mandatory reverification periods as it better suits the needs of the community
The current framework needs to be expanded to include all high-risk nontrade instruments: i.e. Medical weighing, Health, Safety, Tax Collection, Law enforcement leading to litigation.

Owners of trade instruments not understanding their legal obligations.
For Example:
• Where and when trade approved scales need to be used.
• Minimum weight requirements for trade.
• Slope of the land on level approaches for weighbridges.
• Materials for the level approaches for weighbridges.
• Shading of least significant digit on e=10d on jewellery scales and fine balances.

Confusion around old and new laws,
For example:
• End and end weighing, it is declared illegal, but you can get dispensation from NMI.

Better communication between the government and instrument owners of their obligations. This can be further supported by NMI inspectors conducting regular field audits of instrument owners to ensure consumer confidence.
Introduction of mandatory reverification periods to ensure all instruments for transactions are correct over prolonged periods. These instruments could be used in the field for 30+ years without needing to be externally audited or re-verified. Mandatory reverification periods are currently applied to public weighbridges and should be extended to any trade approved scales and high-risk non-trade environment (e.g. Health, Medical Safety, Tax Collection, litigation).

The WIAA believe there should be one Law; this should apply generally to incorrect measurement (not just shortfall). Use of highly accurate measuring instruments meeting Maximum Permissible Error (MPE) which are fit for purpose will assist in this area.

Yes, it ensures accurate instruments are used.
The MPE provides an agreed internationally recognised tolerance.

The WIAA believes all transactions should use weighing instruments that are fit for purpose as the principle measurement to ensure absolute correct measurement and provide confidence in the market place.

The WIAA believes the current approach is acceptable and gives clear guidance on what is required.

The WIAA believes the weight statement is very important to determine the quantity of the contents of a package in order to compare value for money.
For example: competing packet of crisp chips with the same physical size, but one is only half full, while the other is full. Having net weight is the only true way to compare product value.

WIAA believed the current system has been defined over time and is up to date with the further introduction of AQS.
Always ensure products are tested on trade instruments fit for purpose, possible introduction of trade approved Checkweighers to align with international harmonisation.