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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1854 ..

MS TUCKER (4.37): Although I am quite sure this Bill will be supported, the Greens will be opposing it in principle. Firstly, I would like to say, as has already been said by Mr Moore, that I am not happy with the fact that we have had no opportunity to have input into the agreement which this Bill is implementing. I raised the same issues in relation to competition policy. This was another issue which had significant implications for the local economy; but it was signed and sealed by the Executive, with no consultation with other Assembly members. I do not think this is good enough; certainly, it is not what I imagined council-style government would be about. We cannot even amend this Schedule to the Bill.

The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement which was signed by the Prime Minister, all Premiers and the Chief Ministers of the ACT and the Northern Territory last June. The trans-Tasman agreement is about removing regulatory barriers to trade between Australia and New Zealand, and what we are doing here is requesting the Commonwealth to enact legislation on our behalf. Although the legislation is attached as a Schedule, it has not yet been passed. I know the Greens in the Senate will be opposing the Bill in its current form.

The two key principles of the agreement are: Firstly, if goods may be legally sold in New Zealand, they may be sold in an Australian jurisdiction; 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. As far as the Greens are concerned, our current regime of free trade leaves a lot to be desired. Environmental, social and industrial objectives are the least important factor. The principles of mutual recognition in relation to goods reduce standards to the lowest common denominator. I do not have such a problem with the provisions in relation to occupations.

I acknowledge that there are benefits from free trade; for example, transferring skills and technology not available within an economy and encouraging innovation and international best practice. By that I do not mean the international best practice we hear about from the economic fundamentalists. The other benefit is giving developing countries a fair opportunity to trade. But we do not ever hear about the adverse effects of open slather free trade. We do not hear about the global increase in transport use, which is inefficient and destructive to the environment. We could be exporting wheat to a country and importing it back from the same country, all for the sake of an economic transaction. We do not hear about the loss of local cultures, about the loss of diversity to local cultures, about the constant pressure to reduce standards in the name of economic efficiency.

I acknowledge there are some limited exceptions to the proposed Commonwealth legislation, but they are minimal. The basic principle that is spelt out here is that goods produced in New Zealand or Australia do not have to be subject to local legislation in terms of requirements relating to production, composition, quality or performance, or packaging and labelling requirements. This is very concerning, and the process for exemptions seems to be very inflexible. What this provision means is that goods that meet standards in New Zealand but do not meet our standards, other than the few exemptions in the Schedule, will be able to be sold in Australian jurisdictions. If we did have legislation requiring labelling of genetic food, New Zealand goods would be exempt.

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