Page 2655 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
By concluding a final intergovernmental agreement on mutual recognition in May 1992, heads of government endorsed a revised version of the Mutual Recognition Bill. It was agreed to aim for enactment of this legislation in all States and Territories by 31 October 1992 and in the Commonwealth by 1 January 1993. Proclamation of the Commonwealth Act will follow by 1 March 1993 after administrative arrangements have been put in place.
Madam Speaker, the legislation is based on two simple principles. The first is that goods which can be sold lawfully in one State or Territory may be sold freely in any other State or Territory even though the goods may not comply with all the details of regulatory standards in the place where they are sold. If goods are acceptable for sale in one State or Territory, then there is no reason why they should not be sold anywhere in Australia. To give you some examples of the difficulties we are trying to overcome, it was not so long ago that it was virtually impossible to market margarine nationally in one package. Western Australia required margarine to be packed in cube tubs, whereas the familiar round tub was acceptable everywhere else.
As a further example, the ACT has an open market for eggs, yet eggs produced in the ACT cannot be sold in Queensland without first being inspected, size graded and then stamped with a symbol issued by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries. Mutual recognition will mean that producers and importers in Australia will only have to ensure that their products comply with the laws in the place of production or importation. If they do so, they will then be free to distribute and sell their products throughout Australia without being subjected to further testing or assessment of their product. This ensures a national market for those products.
The second principle is that, if a person is registered to carry out an occupation in one State or Territory, then she or he should be able to be registered and carry on the equivalent occupation in any other State or Territory. A person who is registered in one jurisdiction will only need to give notice, including evidence of the person's home registration, to the relevant registration authority in another jurisdiction to be entitled immediately to commence practice in an equivalent occupation in that State or Territory. No additional assessment will be undertaken by the local registration or licensing body to assess the person's capabilities or expertise. Local registration authorities will be required to accept the judgment of their interstate counterparts of a person's educational qualifications, experience, character or fitness to practise.
It is ridiculous that under present arrangements lawyers, doctors and other professionals may have qualifications from the best universities in Australia or the world, and skilled tradespersons may have the finest training and on-the-job experience, but neither group can work outside their home State because of a multiplicity of bureaucratic obstacles and delays. In some cases, work experience in the home State is considered irrelevant. In others, they are required to spend months or even years retraining. Even then they may never succeed in gaining recognition without virtually starting from scratch. This often has little to do with ensuring competency. Much of it is simply motivated by a desire to protect local practitioners from competition. I am sure that everyone would agree that in Australia the existing regulatory arrangements of each State or Territory generally provide a satisfactory set of standards. Thus, on implementation of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .