Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1112 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

The Bill requests the Commonwealth Government to enact legislation applying uniformly throughout Australia the recognition of regulatory standards adopted in New Zealand for goods and occupations. Although the Commonwealth could have legislated on behalf of the ACT, the arrangement as signed requires the ACT and the Northern Territory to pass legislation requesting the Commonwealth to enact legislation for the purposes of the arrangement. This, of course, is different from the situation with the States, where the power has to be referred to the Commonwealth under paragraph (xxxviii) of section 51 of the Constitution.

The proposed Schedule contains a Bill for a Commonwealth Act with the short title of Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997. Amendment of the proposed Commonwealth Act, other than to the schedules, may occur, in accordance with the signed arrangement, only where all Australian participating parties agree. On the other hand, the schedules to the proposed Commonwealth Act will be amendable by regulations in accordance with the Act.

The arrangement is based on two key principles in relation to goods and occupations: If goods may be legally sold in New Zealand, they may be sold in an Australian jurisdiction, and vice versa; and, secondly, if a person is registered to practise an occupation in New Zealand, he or she will be entitled to practise an equivalent occupation in an Australian jurisdiction, and vice versa.

There are a number of specific provisions of the arrangement I wish to bring specifically to members' attention. First of all, in relation to occupations, members will note that I said that the arrangement provides that a person registered to practise an occupation in New Zealand will be entitled to practise an equivalent occupation under the law of any Australian party to the arrangement, and I stress the word "equivalent" in this context. The arrangement focuses on the fact of a person's registration in New Zealand and not on whether or not the person has the educational qualification that would be required to practise in an Australian jurisdiction.

It does, however, allow registration authorities to impose conditions that will bring about equivalence in occupations. Where a person feels aggrieved by the decision of a registration authority, the matter may be appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I should also point out that all laws regulating the practising of an occupation, such as laws relating to the operation of trust accounts or continuing education, apply equally to persons registered under the provisions of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act.

In relation to goods, the principle is that they need comply only with the standards or regulations applying in the country in which they are produced or through which they are imported to be eligible to be sold in the other country. The arrangement, however, does not affect the operation of any laws to the extent that they regulate the manner of sale of goods or the manner in which sellers conduct their business, the transportation, storage or handling of goods, or the inspection of goods. In addition, to avoid unintended consequences from the arrangement, a number of categories of laws were exempted from the arrangement. These laws, which are listed at Schedule 1 to the Commonwealth's Bill, include laws relating to customs control and tariffs, intellectual property, taxation, and specified international obligations.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .