Page 3251 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS CARNELL (11.12): I agree totally with Mr Kaine's comments, but I want to bring up a couple of fairly minor concerns that could become major if not addressed. I am sure that the Chief Minister would be aware that some concerns have been raised in some quarters. One of the major ones that I would like to bring up today relates to Part 3 of the Schedule, which deals with occupations. That is an area in which I have some background from being part of a professional board for a long time.
This part does not allow a second State to put any extra requirement in front of an applicant for registration. That means that a professional who has been registered in his or her State of origin for a number of years, but has not practised, say, as a doctor or whatever for a number of years, must be registered in a second State and the second State may not impose any additional requirements. That means that the second State cannot ask that person to undergo a course or to do any particular extra training. Therefore, a State, like the ACT, may be in a position of having to register somebody who has not practised for a prolonged period. That could cause some real problems in terms of protecting the public. Really, that, I expect, is what we are all about.
The other area of some concern that has been raised, I know, by a number of professional boards around the country is that the legislation currently is very insufficient in terms of identity. That means that professional boards in one State are not allowed to seek more information than is suggested in the legislation, which is fairly minor. A number of the boards' State registering authorities have suggested that there really is insufficient information there. Let us be fair. Local registering authorities exist to protect the public and this, of course, means establishing the identity of incoming professionals and their competency. This Bill makes it very difficult to guarantee these important principles.
That leads me to the real problem with the Bill, and that is what it does with regard to both goods and occupations. It really creates a lowest common denominator. It means that the State with the lowest requirements becomes the norm. In fact, it actually says that a second authority cannot impose any conditions that are harsher than those in the first State. This, as I said, also occurs with goods. The legislation states that goods that can lawfully be imported or produced in one State may be sold in a second State. In fact, except in certain circumstances, the goods must be allowed to be sold in a second State.
That leads me to the point of this very short speech, and that is the really urgent need for uniform standards to be put into place between States as a matter of urgency. The mutual recognition Bills were always envisaged with the idea that uniform standards would be in place prior to the Bills being enacted. This does not seem to have occurred. That also runs to uniform codes of practice for professionals and uniform competency levels between occupations and, of course, between professions. Again, all of these have not come to pass - not in all professions or in all areas. I urge the ACT and all other States to put these into place as soon as is possible, for this legislation, this very important legislation, to be able to become workable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .