Dear Joe and All,
on 2001/06/11 03.30, Joseph B. Reid at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You quote below that:
'The total sum of money expended by the Board in its eleven years of
operations was $5 955 000.'
To put this into context, the population of Australia at that time was about
12 000 000.
>From this you can see that the government contribution to 'metric
conversion' was about 50 cents per person.
--
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
CAMS - Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist
- United States Metric Association
ASM - Accredited Speaking Member
- National Speakers Association of Australia
Member, International Federation for Professional Speakers
> Martcus wrote in USMA 13627:
>
>> Unlike you may think, Jim. I actually have only two general comments to
>> make here.
> .........................................................................
>> Therefore, please remember that the ultimate goal of all of us is to find
>> means to make metrication happen, but happen fast, effectively and (why
>> not?) even efficiently! The whole problem is that some, like you, are
>> trying to 'reinvent the wheel', so to speak, and want to come up with
>> strategies that would avoid government compulsory metrication. Well...
>> Again, history seems to be unquestionably proving that (so far...) there
>> is no other way. The closest effort to 'your way' that I can think of
>> that was successful was the Australian experience. But even there, it had
>> to have 'teeth' in it, otherwise, it, too, would have failed in time.
>
>
> Quite right that the Australian experience was successful, and that it had
> teeth in it. However, Australia had a very effective Metric Conversion
> Board that coordinated metric conversion from 1970 to 1980. The following
> are some of the steps taken in Australia:
>
> 'Standardized' goods after 1976 January 1 could only be marked in
> prescribed metric quantities.
>
> The South Australian Government legislated in 1975 August that:
> *All* weighing and measuring instruments used for trade had to be converted.
> *All* goods weighed or measured in the presence of the customer had to
> be priced per metric unit
> Imperial prices were permitted, provided that they were no more
> prominent than the metric price,
> Penalties up $100 might be applied for non-compliance .
> Similar legislation followed in the other States.
>
> Legislation provided cut-off dates after which only metric scales would be
> reverified
>
> Prosecutions were rare, but three were reported in South Australia within
> the first year.
>
> In Queensland the fine for first offence was $200, and for subsequent
> offences $400. Fines in other states ranged from $40 to $200
>
> The final report of the Metric Conversion Board said
> "Whilst conversion involved the *voluntary participation* of those
> concerned to the greatest extent possible, programs have been supported
> where asppropriate and/or regulated by *mandatory legislation*."
>
> The total sum of money expended by the Board in its eleven years of
> operations was $5 955 000.
>
> A report from the Metric Section of the Department of Science and
> Technology of 1982 July 26 said:
> "In review it seems almost axiomatic that any far reaching national
> change, not only metrication, which is initiated by government can only be
> achieved by voluntary acceptance if it is made a democratic obligation on
> all by legislation."
> "Throughout metrication the problem has been not so much one of public
> opposition as of apathy and disinteresst. To many people it was an
> academic exercise, related to mathematics and higher learning and of no
> direct interest and importance to them.
> "The Board's attitude was that metric conversion was a matter of
> Government policy which was its responsibility to implement, not to debate
> or to promote. Consequently, as a general principle pvblic debate on the
> desirability or worth of metric conversion was avoided and efforts to
> "sell" metrication were avoided as likely to lead to public debate and
> likely to harden or polarise public views on the subject. From this arose
> the concept of keeping a low profile - low key - avoid argument."
>
> My conclusion from the Australian experience is that the important factor
> in procuring a rapid and economical conversion is firm government
> committment backed by a few penalties
> .
>
> Joseph B. Reid
> 17 Glebe Road West
> Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071
>
