National Numeracy Review

The deputy Prime Minister announced the National Numeracy Review on 12 July 2008.

Key documents informing the review including Terms of Reference, Background Paper, Discussion Paper, Invitational Forum Summary and Submissions from organisations can be accessed on the Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations website.

COAG National Action Plan on Mental Health – Progress Report 2006-07

This is the first in the series of annual reports for monitoring implementation of the COAG National Action Plan on Mental Health (2006 - 2011). Prepared under the auspice of Australia’s Health Ministers, it describes the progress made in 2006-07, the commencement year of the Action Plan. National Action Plan for Mental Health 2006-2011 - Progress Report 2006-07.

Implementation of the Report on the Regulation and Control of Biological Agents

Information about the progress of implementing the recommendations of the Report is available on the Department of Health and Ageing’s website.

1. Introduction

Page Index

1.1 Mutual Recognition - The Rationale

The implementation of the principle of mutual recognition in the law of the Commonwealth, States and Territories was an endeavour to address the frustration which business and industry were experiencing in operating in the multiple regulatory environments of the States and Territories. The aim of mutual recognition was to create a regulatory environment which would encourage enterprise, enable business and industry to maximise their efficiency, and promote international competitiveness, through the creation of a truly national market for goods and services.

The existence of multiple regulatory environments and multiple markets in Australia was a significant impediment to the competitiveness of Australian business and industry in the world economy.

For business and industry, multiple regulatory standards across the country meant extra cost, and a compromise on efficiency, because of the need to package and label their goods differently for sale in separate jurisdictions, and the need to satisfy different testing requirements across a number of jurisdictions prior to sale in those jurisdictions. Furthermore, multiple regulatory standards meant that businesses were prevented from capturing the economies of scale available through producing a product to a single standard for sale throughout Australia.

For people working in registered occupations, the existence of different regulatory standards between the States and Territories governing their occupations was a significant impediment to their freedom of movement across Australia.

The Commonwealth, States and Territories understood the need to create a truly national market for goods and services in Australia, and to realise the dream of the founders of Australia's federation of promoting freedom of trade and commerce between the States and Territories.

Historically, government, business and industry thought that uniform national regulation was the answer to ameliorating the barriers to free trade which were a product of the existence of multiple regulatory environments across the States and Territories. However, the Australian experience of uniform national regulation is that the process is either not achievable in the context of the existence of the independent sovereign States of Australia, or if achievable, prohibitively slow. For example, over the passage of a century, the States and Territories were not able to create uniform national food regulation. The mutual recognition process is presently enabling jurisdictions to achieve success in national food regulation.

The experience of the States and Territories of Australia was that there was already a high degree of public confidence in the existence of a satisfactory minimum standard of regulation of goods and services in Australia.

Therefore, the States and Territories sought an administratively simple strategy for achieving a national market in goods and services in Australia - mutual recognition of the regulatory standards of the States and Territories relating to goods and occupations.

The effect of the mutual recognition scheme is first, to enable the sale of goods (that satisfy the regulatory requirements for sale in their original jurisdiction) in any participating jurisdiction, regardless of whether the goods would satisfy the regulatory requirements for sale in the second jurisdiction; and secondly, to enable a person who is registered to practise an occupation in one jurisdiction to become registered to practise the equivalent occupation in a participating jurisdiction, regardless of whether the person would satisfy the registration requirements of the second jurisdiction.

The mutual recognition scheme operates in a complementary manner with the Australian Constitution. The 'freedom of interstate trade and commerce' clause in the Constitution is protection against regulation which is discriminatory between States and Territories (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act: s92). The mutual recognition scheme is a complement to that clause of the Constitution, addressing the issue which the Constitution does not address – that of non-discriminatory regulation which is an impediment to freedom of trade in goods and services.

After half a decade in operation, the evidence suggests that the mutual recognition scheme is working well to minimise the impediments to freedom of trade in goods and services, and to establish a truly national market in goods and services in Australia.

Top

1.2 The Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) and implementing legislation

After the release of the Committee on Regulatory Reform (CRR) Discussion Paper on mutual recognition (Committee on Regulatory Reform, 1991) following the Special Premiers' Conference in July 1991, the Hon. Neville Wran, QC, was responsible for conducting a national consultation process. There was widespread support for the mutual recognition concept, and for the implementation models in respect of both goods and occupations put forward in the Discussion Paper.

Premiers and Chief Ministers endorsed a draft intergovernmental agreement and draft legislation in their meeting of November 1991, and signed the Intergovernmental Agreement on Mutual Recognition in their meeting of May 1992, committing jurisdictions to implement mutual recognition from 1 March 1993 (see Appendix A).

The States and Territories chose to implement the mutual recognition scheme through national scheme legislation, either referring their power to enact mutual recognition legislation to the Commonwealth Government, or adopting the Commonwealth legislation (pursuant to s51(xxxvii) of the Commonwealth Constitution). All jurisdictions chose to implement mutual recognition legislation, and are therefore 'participating parties' in the mutual recognition scheme.

The Commonwealth legislation is the Mutual Recognition (Commonwealth) Act 1992. For ease of expression, the remainder of the Report will refer exclusively to the Commonwealth legislation.

The mutual recognition legislation pursues the following two principles regarding freedom of interstate trade in goods and labour in a national market in Australia:

The first principle is that goods which may legally be sold in one State or Territory may be sold in a second State or Territory, regardless of differences in standards applying to goods in the relevant jurisdictions.

The second principle is that if a person is registered to practise an occupation in one State or Territory, he or she should be able to be registered to practise an equivalent occupation in a second State or Territory.

The premise is that the existing regulatory standards of all jurisdictions establish standards applying to goods and occupations, which satisfy public expectations across the country.

The participating parties to the MRA thought that the MRA would generate the following benefits:

  • creating a national goods and labour market in Australia;
  • increasing the competitiveness of the national market;
  • minimising regulatory impediments to free trade in goods and labour in Australia;
  • increasing consumer choice in the market;
  • decreasing the cost to industry; and
  • increasing mobility of people registered to practise in equivalent occupations across jurisdictions.

Since the scheme commenced, the anecdotal evidence of people involved in the scheme is that mutual recognition is generally working well, and delivering the benefits which the participating parties anticipated. Mutual recognition is operating smoothly, and there is little evidence of unworkable problems emerging following its introduction. In the case of occupations, mutual recognition is currently the commonest form of registration individuals are using in moving between jurisdictions, significantly reducing administration and compliance costs for both registration agencies and individuals.

Top

1.3 Financial impact on Government

The anecdotal evidence of regulatory agencies is that the financial impact of the mutual recognition scheme is minimal, mainly affecting occupational registration agencies, and that the administrative savings are greater than the additional costs. Depending on the number of mutual recognition applications received, the scheme has had the following financial implications for regulatory agencies:

  • increased administrative costs from requirements for local registration agencies to make available information about a person registered in their jurisdiction to another State (Mutual Recognition Act 1992: s37), and the requirement that deemed registration operate pending the granting of substantive registration (Mutual Recognition Act 1992: Division 3), which is more time consuming than prior to the introduction of mutual recognition; and
  • substantial savings in administration time due to the mutual recognition of registration from other jurisdictions, and also to the development of national approaches and uniform requirements in a number of areas.

The net impact of the mutual recognition scheme on regulatory agencies is not clear. However, on balance, there is no evidence of either a significant increase or decrease in cost to regulatory agencies in relation to administering the scheme.

Top

1.4 The Review

The Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act 1992, commencing on 1 March 1993, was originally to operate for a five year period (clause 2.1; 7.1; 7.2). Heads of Government of the Participating Parties were to review the MRA and the relevant implementing legislation in the year leading up to the expiry date (clause 7.1.1). The MRA and the mutual recognition legislation were therefore due for review between 1 March 1997 and 1 March 1998.

In addition to the review required under the MRA, a number of jurisdictions were obliged to review their mutual recognition legislation under the legislative review requirements of the Competition Principles Agreement (Appendix G). For example, the Commonwealth legislation was due for review in 1997-98.

Due to the fact that the implementation of the MRA is through national scheme legislation, all jurisdictions agreed to a national review of the MRA and implementing legislation.

The terms of reference reflect the review requirements of the Mutual Recognition Agreement and the requirements in the Competition Principles Agreement. Western Australia held a general review of the operation of the mutual recognition scheme in 1997, and their review data are incorporated in this Report.

The mutual recognition legislation is generally speaking 'pro-competitive' legislation. However, the MRA is subject to a number of potentially anti-competitive exemptions, including exemptions made on the grounds of public health and safety, and the protection of the environment, to address market failure. Under the Competition Principles Agreement, jurisdictions reviewing legislation are required to assess whether potentially anti-competitive aspects of legislation are justifiable in the 'public interest' (clause 5(1)). This Review will therefore incorporate a national competition policy assessment of the exemptions to the mutual recognition legislation.

Due to the fact that the MRA was an agreement of all Heads of Government, all Heads of Government had to endorse the review of the MRA. The Prime Minister wrote to all Heads of Government in September 1997 seeking their agreement to the Terms of Reference and the review process, and all Heads of Government agreed to both. The Prime Minister's letter to Premiers and Chief Ministers, and the Terms of Reference are included in Appendices B and C of the Report respectively.

The Review Group comprised of a sub-group of the COAG Committee on Regulatory Reform, with representatives from the Commonwealth, Queensland (chair), New South Wales and Western Australia.

CRR was required to report to COAG Senior Officials by 1 July 1998. After consideration of the Report, Senior Officials will report to the Council of Australian Governments for their consideration and implementation of recommendations.

Following the review, the MRA will remain in operation, subject to the power of the Heads of Government to unanimously terminate the operation of the MRA (Mutual Recognition Agreement: clause 7.1.3). The Commonwealth Act will therefore remain in place, subject to a unanimous decision of Heads of Government to amend the Act.

Top

1.5 The consultation process

The Review Group made use of the Office of Regulation Review information paper Impact of Mutual Recognition on Regulations in Australia: A Preliminary Assessment (1997) in the consultation process, supplying copies of the paper to all people expressing an interest in writing to the Review (the full text of the information paper is available on the internet through the Industry Commission home page: http://www.obpr.gov.au/publications/information/mutrec/index.html ).

A newspaper advertisement outlining the review was published in The Weekend Australian and the Australian Financial Review calling for public submissions.

The Review Group drafted a brief questionnaire on mutual recognition and guidelines for preparing submissions (see Appendix D). These, along with the Office of Regulation Review Information Paper Impact of Mutual Recognition on Regulations in Australia - A Preliminary Assessment made up the information kit for the Review.

A letter enclosing the information kit was made available to organisations with an interest in the MRA - regulatory agencies, professional groups and industry organisations in every State and Territory.

Ministerial Councils were included in the consultation process, due to the fact that their role under the MRA is to report on the effectiveness of the scheme. These councils are required to make recommendations regarding the future operation of the scheme to the Heads of Government of the Participating Parties in the sixth month period prior to the expiry of the MRA.

The Review Group received 94 submissions (including 31 submissions which were originally made to the WA review of their mutual recognition legislation), and 99 questionnaires (see Appendix D).

Top

1.6 The Report

The Mutual Recognition Agreement, and implementing legislation, was initially to operate for a five year period, after which the participating parties were to review the operation of the scheme, and recommend whether the scheme should operate in future.

The Report of the Review Group, assessing the success of the mutual recognition scheme, will proceed in the following manner:

Part A of the Report is the review of the Intergovernmental Agreement Relating to Mutual Recognition, and the implementing legislation, required under the MRA.

Part B of the Report is the review of the Intergovernmental Agreement Relating to Mutual Recognition and the implementing legislation required under national competition policy.

Part C of the Report is a commentary on miscellaneous issues.

Recommendation 1
That jurisdictions endorse the continuation of the MRA. Jurisdictions note that clause 7.1.3 of the Agreement governs the continued operation of the MRA.

Last Updated: 28 July, 2008
7 8