Page 2407 - Week 09 - Thursday, 17 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR LAMONT (11.33): Madam Speaker, I will start off by answering some of the criticism raised by Mr Moore and by Mr Humphries. I think they should understand that the program tabled and addressed by Mr Berry outlines those Bills which we wish to see tabled, determined or in fact prepared during this session of the Assembly.
Mr Humphries: Twist it around. It does not say that here, does it? Where does it say that here?
MR LAMONT: Mr Berry said:
In relation to legislation proposals falling into the second priority, it is possible that some may be introduced into the Assembly during the current sittings. This will depend on the progress with the issues involved and the degree of complexity in terms of drafting.
Madam Speaker, I think that that quite clearly puts paid to some of the comments that have been made in relation to the time at which these Bills will be available.
This morning I specifically wish to address a number of the proposals. Legislation such as the Mutual Recognition Bill has been discussed at Premiers conferences over the last four or five years. The current Chief Minister has not been the only strong proponent of the concepts of mutual recognition. I am aware that Mr Kaine, during the brief period he presided over Canberra as the Chief Minister, also pushed the question of mutual recognition. Madam Speaker, it could be said that the concepts of mutual recognition have been coming upon us for the last century. One of the great difficulties we have had in this country is that our forefathers prior to Federation and even at Federation imbued us with the concept that we are a range of States within the country of Australia, instead of the concept that in fact business and the public sector would work far better without the inhibitors of State boundaries.
Indeed, those State boundaries have seen put into place a range of legislation which has affected trade between the States and Territories. It has affected recognition in a whole range of goods and services areas and led to great inefficiencies. In fact, it could be said that the concepts which have been enunciated and which will be incorporated into this Bill are the most significant micro-economic reforms in this country this century. That is not to say that it is being done only here in the ACT. A series of conferences was organised by the Premiers and the 1990 Special Premiers Conference. I was quite pleased to be part of one of the consultation meetings here in Canberra last year, when I represented the ACT Trades and Labour Council. There was a panel of eminent people from around Australia and from the ACT. We discussed such problems as the lack of recognition of skills across State borders. Because different States had different legislation, a plumber registered in Victoria, as an example, was prevented from being licensed and undertaking skilled trades work in the ACT, and vice versa. Such a regime of legislation that has prevented skilled people from travelling to meet work demands is an extremely inefficient way for us to operate.
In relation to direct goods, there are a range of concerns about the difficulties and confusion that exist in how goods are packaged, labelled and so on. Some of them are covered in the food Bills which the Minister announced and which this Assembly passed during those sittings. But a range of other measures yet to be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .