Page 3250 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, this legislation must not become a second-rate response to micro-economic reform. It must not be a "near enough is good enough" approach. The Government, together with all State, Territory and Federal governments, must press on beyond this useful legislation to establish those uniform standards. This must be seen, therefore, as a solid first step but no more than that.
Having spoken about the context of the Bill, I would like to sound a warning as we open our market to goods and services from other States. The quality and safety standards we expect of goods and services in the ACT will not now automatically apply unless there is a danger to the health or safety of individuals. In other words, we are in danger of adopting a lowest common denominator approach to standards until we do something about establishing national standards.
In 1990 there was optimism that the legislation would not produce this lowest common denominator effect. That optimism was based on the expectation that national uniform standards would be vigorously pursued as a sensible part of micro-economic reform, and that States and Territories would introduce local high standards where uniform standards were absent. Uniform standards have been introduced for most aspects of goods, labelling, quality, distribution, packaging, et cetera, but in respect of occupations there are still a number of areas where licensing and standards are inadequate or only partially adequate. There is concern about credit providers and motor dealers, licensed everywhere except in Tasmania. State consumer bureaus are increasingly concerned that there are issues emerging in response to the legislation that appear to have been overlooked. New South Wales and Victoria both have reservations about legislating too quickly.
I think there are some warnings here, Madam Speaker, that the Government needs to have regard for, and I am sure that they have them in mind; but we should not forget them over the coming months. I welcome the sunset clause inherent in the legislation and I hope that this will be replicated in all future legislation brought forward. In this case, of course, it happens to be a recognition of the intent, at the Commonwealth level, to produce legislation that will override ours. I think that a sunset clause is a good clause in almost any legislation.
I have a final comment, Madam Speaker, and it is in connection with subclause 2(3). The Government must look at the implementation of the legislation only in harmony with the States. To be fully committed to implementation without the equal commitment of all other jurisdictions could leave the ACT unnecessarily exposed, where we are the only player and the States and the Northern Territory have not proceeded at the same pace as we have to introduce this kind of legislation. We should keep our implementation open until we are satisfied that we are moving in concert with the other players. I am suggesting that subclause 2(3), which says that the Bill becomes effective six months after the Chief Minister signs it into law, is something that we should look at carefully to make sure that we are not getting too far out of synchronisation with what is happening elsewhere.
With those comments, Madam Speaker, I reaffirm that the Liberal Party supports this legislation as being valuable and useful legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .