Page 3252 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (11.16), in reply: Madam Speaker, I thank members for their comments and for their contribution to this debate. I am very pleased to see that the speakers have recognised that the introduction of arrangements for mutual recognition for goods and occupations is, as I believe, one of the most important reforms since Federation. The arrangements recognise that the time has well and truly come for Australia to create a national market. What the legislation does is remove the needless artificial barriers to interstate trade in goods and the mobility of labour that are caused by regulatory differences among Australian States and Territories. Madam Speaker, there is, as other speakers have acknowledged, an almost universal criticism of governments for the imposition of regulatory and legislative burdens on business and on the wider community, and I think I can speak for my counterparts throughout Australia in saying that this is one piece of legislation that should very genuinely be welcomed.
Mr Kaine commented that he hoped that we were not getting too much in advance of the general movement on this legislation. I can advise the Assembly that New South Wales has already passed its legislation and, as a result, the Commonwealth has introduced its Bill. That occurred on 3 November 1992 in accordance with the timeframe that had been envisaged by heads of government. The ACT will be the second jurisdiction to pass this historic legislation - I am assuming that it will be passed today - and I very much welcome the bipartisan support that the legislation has.
I would like to turn very briefly to some of the issues raised by Mr Kaine and Mrs Carnell, and in particular to their comments in relation to what they have described as lowest common denominator standards. I can understand their concern over this matter, Madam Speaker, and I would address it by saying that I think the mutual recognition legislation does already work on the assumption that there are some differences in standards between States and Territories but that those differences are not great. There are already numerous areas, in fact, where regulations have been brought into harmony. That is particularly the case between the ACT and New South Wales. It is a matter that we continue to work on.
I believe that that work and the fact that the differences are not great will prevent the risk of a kind of downward spiralling of standards from occurring. Furthermore, the mutual recognition scheme itself does have inbuilt safeguards with temporary exemptions for goods and temporary declarations of non-equivalents for occupations to ensure that standards are aimed at protecting health and safety and preventing environmental pollution; that standards are kept at an acceptable level. I think that in some cases, Madam Speaker, the result may be an elevation of standards. I certainly hope that that is the case.
Mr Kaine also referred to the ultimate goal of development of uniform standards rather than what he saw as the interim step of mutual recognition of standards. Indeed, Mr Kaine is right on that matter. I believe, however, that the mutual recognition legislation does facilitate the development of uniform standards, and it does that in a couple of ways. First of all, a State or a Territory can challenge the standard of another State or Territory in relation to a particular good by
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .