I retract my previous statements, Pat. I no longer blame the Australian
government for demanding the metrication of the country.
Jim
Pat Naughtin wrote:
On 2009/08/29, at 09:37 , James R. Frysinger wrote:
I presume there was some explicit or implicit imperative, or at least
an expectation, to accomplish the task fully within some short span of
time and across all sectors.
Dear Jim,
To support my earlier contention about the nature of the metric
transition in Australia, I will quote from the introduction of Kevin
Wilks' 1982 report, '/Metrication in Australia/':
A REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IN AUSTRALIA'S
CONVERSION TO THE METRIC SYSTEM
1. *INTRODUCTION*
Since 1970, Australians have witnessed and participated in a very
remarkable technological and cultural change. This is the transition
from the long-established Imperial System of weights and measures to the
International System (SI), the most recent and most highly developed of
the metric systems.
The only previous experience Australians have had of a change like this
was the adoption, in 1966, of decimal currency.
Unlike decimal currency conversion, which was limited to two units of
currency, the dollar and the cent, and which was effectively completed
in little over 12 months (although a considerable amount of planning
occurred before that period), metric conversion has been an all
pervading exercise which has affected literally every aspect of
Australian life.
It has been an emotional experience for some, arousing sometimes anger,
sometimes admiration and always some fear and trepidation about how the
change might affect personal life.
Despite the potential for disruption to normal life, the change has been
surprisingly trouble free in both private and commercial spheres. A
small band of enthusiastic anti-metricationists gained very little
support, and the vast majority of people adopted a fatalistic and
unruffled attitude to the change. It seems that with patience, most
people have coped very well with it.
The change was largely voluntary and no new legislation, other than the
Metric Conversion Act, was introduced by State or Federal Governments to
enforce metrication. In some cases where compulsion was necessary,
metric units were substituted for imperial units in existing Acts and
Regulations.
It was sometimes asked why the decision to go metric was not reached by
referendum. This would have presupposed that people would have had a
comparable knowledge of both the imperial and the metric systems and of
the impact such a change might have. While metrication has certainly had
a massive cultural impact on people in their lives as ordinary citizens
it is, nevertheless, a predominantly technical change, affecting
commerce, industry, engineering, science and education. For referendum
purposes, relatively few people would have had sufficient knowledge of
both systems to make an informed decision.
The decision to go metric was achieved through an open committee of
inquiry, appointed by the Government, which collected evidence from any
person who felt interested or competent enough to give it.
Although the Board and its committees worked meticulously over 11 years,
it was natural that there would remain evidences of imperial usage and
incomplete conversion long after metrication was officially declared
complete. Nevertheless, an irreversible change has occurred and, as with
decimal currency, the logic of the decision to convert has impressed
itself on serious-minded people, and the desire to return to imperial
units has largely disappeared.
The change was remarkable, not merely for what was achieved but also for
the very special way in which it was achieved. With its broadly based
committee structure, decision-making by consensus rather than majority
rule, its support by a skilled professional secretariat, and with
authority and responsibility for conversion vested in the persons who
would be required to carry it out, the project it was a model of how
other national projects might be planned and effected.
This report is a review of metrication policies and procedures from
their inception in 1966 when the need for a decimal system of
measurement was becoming generally appreciated, to 1982, a year after
the Board was disbanded and the project was deemed formally to be complete.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
Author of the ebook, /Metrication Leaders Guide,/ that you can obtain
from http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008
Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped
thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern
metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save
thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for their
businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many different
trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial and
government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's
clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the
metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA.
See http://www.metricationmatters.com
<http://www.metricationmatters.com/>for more metrication information,
contact Pat at [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> or to get the free
'/Metrication matters/' newsletter go
to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe.
--
James R. Frysinger
632 Stony Point Mountain Road
Doyle, TN 38559-3030
(C) 931.212.0267
(H) 931.657.3107
(F) 931.657.3108
