Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I present the report of the committee entitled Harmonisation of legal systems within Australia and between Australia and New Zealand, together with the minutes of proceedings.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper

I thank the House. On 7 February 2005 the Attorney-General asked the committee to inquire into and report on the lack of harmonisation within Australia’s legal system and between the legal systems of Australia and New Zealand, with particular reference to those differences having an impact on trade and commerce. The work of the committee on the harmonisation inquiry was unavoidably suspended from June 2005 to March 2006 due to two other urgent inquiries, which the committee conducted in succession: an inquiry into the exposure draft of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 and an inquiry into technological protection measures exceptions. I would like to thank those who contributed evidence to the harmonisation inquiry for their patience while work on the inquiry was suspended.

The committee was very interested to examine as part of its inquiry the issue of harmonisation between Australia and New Zealand. Australia and New Zealand have a uniquely close and abiding relationship, and it is a relationship that continues to grow closer over time. Over the course of the inquiry, the committee came to the view that this relationship, particularly in the globalised environment that now exists, should perhaps be closer still. Accordingly, the committee has recommended that the Australian parliament invite the parliament of New Zealand to establish a trans-Tasman committee for the purpose of monitoring and reporting on ongoing harmonisation of the two legal systems. This trans-Tasman committee would also explore further options of mutual benefit to the Australia-New Zealand relationship, including the possibility of closer association or even political union.

The committee has also made a number of other recommendations regarding harmonisation between Australia and New Zealand in particular areas. The committee has recommended, for example, that a common currency should be pursued and that harmonisation of the two telecommunications regulation frameworks should be proposed by the Australian government. Other areas where the committee has recommended harmonisation be pursued between Australia and New Zealand include ministerial councils, banking regulation and consumer contracts.

In terms of harmonisation within Australia, the committee examined a number of specific areas under the terms of reference, including the statute of limitations, legal procedures, partnership laws, service of legal proceedings, evidence law and standards of products. The committee also examined a broad range of other areas that were raised in the evidence, such as power of attorney, real estate, personal property securities, the not-for-profit sector and the science industry.

In some areas raised in the evidence, the committee was encouraged to see that harmonisation is already being progressed across the Australian jurisdictions—for example, in personal property securities law. In many other areas, however, it was clear to the committee that more needs to be done. The committee has recommended therefore that the government progress harmonisation in a number of areas, such as mutual recognition of power of attorney instruments, consumer protection legislation, regulation of the not-for-profit sector, statutes of limitation, evidence law and the model Criminal Code. Importantly, at the constitutional level the committee has also recommended that the government progress an amendment to the Australian Constitution in order to overcome limitations to cooperative legislative schemes between the Commonwealth and the states. In all, a total of 27 recommendations are made by the committee in its report.

It is important to note that, since the committee commenced its inquiry in early 2005, there have been significant national developments regarding regulatory harmonisation in Australia. The Council of Australian Governments, for example, has agreed to reduce the regulatory burden imposed by governments across Australia and to identify further reforms regarding regulatory consistency, duplication and overlap. In addition, the recent report of the Taskforce on Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Business identified regulatory overlap and inconsistency as a prominent issue for business, and the government has agreed to recommendations of the task force in this regard.

The committee supports these developments and envisages that its own recommendations will assist the Commonwealth, states and territories by highlighting specific areas of concern that require further harmonisation. The committee believes that its work will make a positive contribution to the progressive streamlining and simplification of regulatory frameworks in Australia and also to the Australia-New Zealand relationship.

I would like to thank all of those who in writing or in person were able to provide their views on legal harmonisation to the committee. The committee appreciated both the quality and the quantity of evidence received from a range of groups and individuals in relation to this technical, complex and wide-ranging inquiry. I would also like to thank the staff of the committee secretariat for their work on the inquiry, particularly the committee secretary, Ms Cheryl Scarlett, and the inquiry secretary, Dr Nicholas Horne. I would also like to thank members of the committee. (Time expired)

See this speech in context