John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

Before dealing with the substance of this report, I would like to congratulate the members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Mr Michael Ferguson, Kay Hull, Duncan Kerr, Daryl Melham, Sophie Mirabella, Nicola Roxon, Patrick Secker, David Tollner and Mr Malcolm Turnbull—albeit he was only on the inquiry for a few days—and particularly the chairman, the member for Fisher, Mr Peter Slipper, for his very great management of this committee and this inquiry. These members brought a wealth of experience to this inquiry from a suitably broad range of backgrounds, and I am grateful for the valuable insight that each has provided on this and many other reports.

I would also like to pay tribute to the committee secretariat, including the committee secretaries, Ms Joanne Towner and Ms Cheryl Scarlett; the inquiry secretary, Dr Nicholas Horne; the research officers, Ms Emily Howie and Mr Thomas Wood; and the administrative officers, Ms Kate Tremble and Ms Jazmine De Roza. Their work is highly regarded. That they are able to produce the very high standard of work that they do in often difficult circumstances is a real tribute to them.

The report, Harmonisation of legal systems within Australia and between Australia and New Zealand, deals with the fundamental tenet of reducing or eliminating inconsistencies between the numerous legal systems that have resulted from our system of federalism. There can be no doubt that the consequences of federalism have included cases of duplicity and complexity. Numerous submissions were provided to the committee detailing absurd situations resulting from a lack of legal harmonisation in Australia. While many may be found in this report, there is one example which deserves special attention. As the report states:

A power of attorney granted by an individual in New South Wales (and probably other States) will not be valid in the Australian Capital Territory. Thus an individual who grants an enduring power of attorney in NSW, relocates to the ACT, and suffers a loss of capacity to make a new grant will not be covered by the NSW power of attorney.

Suffice it to say that wider publicity of this fact could have the potential to surprise a great number of individuals who have taken the trouble to make a grant. This example draws attention to the fact that the operation of the law may have the power to adversely impact the most vulnerable members of our community at a time when those members most need its support.

Understandably, many would not understand the wider implications of the lack of harmonisation in Australia’s legal systems, nor could we expect them to. I have been left in absolutely no doubt that the difficulties or uncertainties that arise from regulatory inconsistencies across jurisdictions may result in unacceptable impacts on ordinary Australians.

There can also be no doubt that the difficulties and uncertainties which result from inconsistencies across jurisdictions may also adversely impact on profit and non-profit organisations. The lack of harmonisation in some areas of law may increase regulatory costs, increase uncertainty and increase comparative disadvantages. The scourge of red tape is ever-present for businesses and not-for-profit groups, without the added burdens that arise from a lack of legal harmonisation. While harmonisation can increase the potential for growth in industry, trade and business, it is also seen as a boon by the Fundraising Institute, the peak national body for the not-for-profit fundraising sector in Australia, which has raised the high compliance costs of its members.

The benefits of harmonisation in specific contexts are readily apparent if we look at the alternatives that would present themselves in current cooperative models. Individual corporations jurisdictions across the states and territories would be an unmitigated disaster for the increasing numbers of corporations that have expanded vertically, horizontally and geographically. Suffice it to say that the national economic interest demands a national Corporations Law scheme rather than an unwieldy set-up. We recognised this in the early 1990s.

While I am broadly supportive of a greater harmonisation of legal systems, I would not be so if harmonisation were to be used as a guise to extend the Commonwealth’s regulatory reach by stealth. Regrettably, many may feel some degree of cynicism towards this report in the light of the government’s use of the corporations power to move into state business in a major way through its Work Choices legislation. That is why I say this: unified goals should not be an end in themselves, and the costs of unification should always be balanced against the benefits.

That is why I am happy to support this report’s approach of looking at matters on a case-by-case basis and the need to carefully evaluate the need for, and costs and disadvantages of, harmonisation in each area of law. This much is apparent from the report’s recommendations, which call for an investigation into greater harmonisation in banking regulation frameworks, succession law, debt collection, civil debt recovery, stamp duty, partnership laws, consumer protection, electrical product safety, hazardous substance reporting— (Time expired)

See this speech in context