Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: When we first debated mutual recognition in relation to the States, the Democrats expressed grave reservations, and I expressed some of those reservations again during the second reading debate. Having had a chance to look at the response of the Minister, my concerns remain as strong as ever. I do not have problems with the concept of mutual recognition, but I do have problems with the concept of mutual recognition applying to everything except for those things which are specifically exempted by this Bill; and it is virtually impossible to add anything else to the list later on. It is my view that progress on a number of issues has been made by one jurisdiction somewhere in Australia picking up an issue and, once the changes happen in that jurisdiction, it is progressively picked up in others.

One example I can remember during my time in Parliament was when Tasmania legislated in relation to ozone protection, then South Australia and the other States did it progressively over time. South Australia has beverage container legislation, and I know that serious analysis of it is being undertaken even today although, I suspect on my reading of this, no other State would be able to have beverage container legislation. I may be wrong but, as it is mentioned as a specific exemption for South Australia and not mentioned for the other States, I am not sure that they could follow suit. Logically one could think, `What if some other State had done it first and we thought it was a good idea and we wanted to follow suit?' We simply could not do it. Waiting for the Federal Government to act on some issues could take forever.

Discussions have taken place from time to time about the Beverage Container Act being extended to cover other containers. The Minister probably will not answer this question now but, if we wish to extend the Beverage Container Act to pick up other containers which did not even exist at the time we first passed the legislation, are we now constrained? I suspect we are. I must say that, if I had any indication from other members of this place that we should not proceed with the Bill any further at this stage, I would welcome that. I do not want to defeat the Bill at this stage but, on the basis of what I have now seen, I am increasingly concerned. We really should have been chasing this system of mutual recognition by including particular matters rather than having a very short list of things which are not included.

It is probably not too much of a problem with occupations; it would relate more to goods and the like. As I said, if there was an indication of support from others, I would be seeking to not proceed further but, if the Labor Party in particular and either the Hon. Terry Cameron or the Hon. Nick Xenophon are happy to support the Bill as it is, I am not in a position to go down that path. I express that reservation. From what I have gathered from the discussion in relation to battery hens, that further confirms that the Parliament in the ACT made a decision and the decision was not made for trade reasons: it believed that its community wanted something. Under this sort of legislation, its community simply cannot do that. It cannot make a decision that it does not want eggs produced by caged hens, because that would destroy their egg industry as eggs from interstate poured in. Even though the ACT community believes that a certain decision should be made, the ACT Parliament is precluded from doing it. It depends upon whether that issue grabs members, but I think the principle is at least demonstrated.

I wonder also about other problems. It talks about occupations, and there is the concept of deemed registration. For instance, I refer to teaching, an occupation with which I am familiar, because I was registered as a teacher. I would appreciate a response at some time concerning what the consequences are if there is another jurisdiction that does not have deemed registration. To take it a step further, a person applies for deemed registration under Part 3, Occupations, in clause 18(1). I wonder how many months a person might be teaching with deemed registration before it was found that the person was not qualified and was not registered. I cannot find any penalty for submitting a false declaration. I may have missed it, but I certainly cannot find it.

I can imagine that sort of thing happening. For example, a person could travel to South Australia, say that they are a registered teacher and fill in all the appropriate forms and whatever else is required, claiming that they are registered in New Zealand. I am sure the checks will not happen overnight. I suspect the checks will take weeks, if not months and, in the meantime, the person could be given full registration. In some occupations that could be of real concern. I know that the State is trying very hard to ensure that no-one who has had a record of paedophilia, for instance, finds their way into the Education Department, and the registration process is one way of achieving that. However, in South Australia, as I said, a person could come here from another jurisdiction, obtain deemed registration and be teaching until all the particulars in New Zealand had been checked. They are just a few things on the run that are causing me concern as I consider some of the responses I have received so far.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to undertake on behalf of the Premier to correspond with the honourable member. If there are further questions, I am happy to provide those answers as well.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (3 to 6) and title passed.

Bill read a third time and passed.