Page 2657 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In respect of occupations, the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal will hear appeals against decisions of local registration authorities and will have the power to declare an occupation to be non-equivalent. This would occur in instances where there is no technical equivalence in the sense that the activities a practitioner is authorised to carry out under registration from one jurisdiction to another are not substantially the same. Declarations of non-equivalence may also be made where there is technical equivalence but there are health, safety or pollution grounds for preventing practitioners from one State from carrying on that occupation in other States and Territories. Such declarations are to have effect for no longer than 12 months, during which time relevant State and Commonwealth Ministers have to agree on whether or not to develop and apply a uniform standard. If not, mutual recognition will apply.
The legislation provides for certain permanent exemptions in relation to goods. Heads of government have agreed that the exemptions schedules should be extremely limited, focusing on those products for which a national market is undesirable. Examples of exemptions include pornography, firearms and other offensive weapons, and gaming machines. In the case of firearms, heads of government agreed that the ACT Weapons Act be specifically exempted.
The mutual recognition principle in relation to occupations will mean that a registered practitioner wishing to practise in another State can notify the local registration authority of her or his intention to seek registration in an equivalent occupation there. The local registration authority then has one month to process the application and to make a decision on whether or not to grant registration. Pending registration the practitioner is entitled, once the notice is made and all necessary information provided, to commence practice immediately in that occupation, subject to the payment of fees and compliance with various indemnity or insurance requirements in relation to that occupation. No other preconditions can be imposed on the entitlement to commence practice. Conditions can be placed on the practitioner's registration in order to achieve equivalence. In addition, the interstate practitioner is immediately subject to the disciplinary requirements and other rules of conduct in the new jurisdiction applicable to local practitioners.
The Government is confident that participation in this legislative scheme will provide major benefits. The unnecessary costs for producers in accommodating minor differences in regulatory requirements of States and Territories in relation to goods will be removed. Genuine competition across State and Territory borders will be encouraged as a result of producers having more ready access to the Australian market as a whole. Labour mobility will be enhanced with the removal of artificial barriers linked to registration and licensing laws. As a result we will be able to make better use of our labour force skills.
Australia's international competitiveness will rise as producers capitalise on the economies of scale made possible by mutual recognition. This is a process that will occur over the medium to long term. More efficient standards brought about by competition among jurisdictions should result in community requirements being met at a lower overall cost. Wider consumer choice and a greater responsiveness to the needs and demands of consumers among producers and regulators should result. At the same time, as I pointed out earlier, the mutual recognition scheme is designed to ensure that there is no compromise on standards in the important areas of health and safety and environmental protection.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .