 |
 |
|
|
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: This is another of those Bills concerning which the Government has given us very short notice about wanting it processed. I make the same protest that I made regarding the financial institutions Bills that were dealt with a short while ago. From the brief consultations I have been able to carry out up to this point, I have found no groups who are expressing opposition to the Bill, but I will make a few observations about the whole concept of mutual recognition before this Bill passes.
I note that there was a review report on the operation of the Australian MRA. That report recommended that further reviews occur every five years, with the next review to take place in the year 2003 in conjunction with the first review of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Scheme. That is another matter on which legislation was passed in this place during the last session. So, at a national level there is the intention to review the workings of mutual recognition every five years, but as a result of the amendments that we are making today in this Bill this Parliament will play no further role. What that means is that if it is perceived that there are problems with mutual recognition and if we want to do something about that in this State Parliament, we will have to get the approval of all other State Parliaments before we can. I think that is one of the unfortunate outcomes of the direction in which we are heading. It seems to me that it might take some time before problems with mutual recognition finally start to flow through the system. Some exemptions have been granted in relation to mutual recognition: for instance, the right of some States to have Acts which control CFCs which affect the ozone layer, and South Australia's own container deposit legislation has been exempted under mutual recognition. However, the very existence of such exemptions reveals an underlying problem. It is true that from time to time a State may do something which other States have not yet done. It appears to me that, if we did not have container deposit legislation and wished to introduce it, mutual recognition would make that extraordinarily difficult.We then have two conflicting arguments. First, there is the advantage that exists with all States operating under the same rules. I have no problems with an argument that says that, as far as is practicable, we should endeavour to do this, but whether or not you take that to the nth degree and not allow yourself any discretion to be different at all is quite another matter.
536 It is my view that much change has taken place in Australia because one State has done it and other States have progressively followed. If I move outside of the matters which, strictly speaking, are under the mutual recognition legislation, it was South Australia which granted women the right to vote. Then one other State followed, and then, because women had been granted the vote in South Australia, when Federation occurred women were granted the vote everywhere. But the point is that it occurred in one place first and others followed. We can see that, when I introduced the first CFC legislation in Australia, Tasmania introduced a Bill and, once they did it, South Australia followed and then, progressively, others followed. If we waited for action at a national level, in many cases we would still be waiting. It appears to me that there is a certain inertia and a certain conservatism and resistance to change at a national level.
People in perhaps the more conservative States like Queensland are desperate for things to be done nationally, because they feel that some things will never change. I think that they are wrong. The only way things will ever change in Queensland is if other States change first. I am concerned that in seeking to get uniformity around Australia, which is a good thing, we have almost conceded the right to be different in any way whatsoever. I gave examples such as the container deposit legislation, which would have been almost impossible to introduce if we were the first State and other States had to follow; and the CFC legislation is another area which has exemptions. There are a range of exemptions which different States currently have.
If you went back through history, you would find many pieces of legislation which one State had but which others eventually adopted. Once they all adopt them, it no longer becomes a problem. We have entrenched an anti-change mindset into Australia by seeking mutual recognition in an exact form. Again, I am not opposed to the basic, underlying principles of it, but it is casting something of a suffocating blanket over the prospect of change. It will take another decade or so before we look back and say, `Perhaps we should have allowed one more degree of freedom to the States than we did in mutual recognition.'