C2/
CHECK~ AGAINST DELIVER%' iMBARCJEIl UN~ TIL 4 PM
t EMBARGOED UNTIL 1PM TIME)
CEDA LUNCHEON PERTH 19 NOVEMBER 1984
WHEN AUSTRALIANS GO TO THE POLLS ON I DECEMBER THEY WILL
CHOOSE THEIR GOVERNMENT FOR THE NEXT 3 YEARS. THEY WILL
ALSO DECIDE TWO CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT REFERENDUMS.
THOSE REFERENDUMS ARE OF PROFOUND SIGNIFICANCE FOR
AUSTRALIANS IN ALL WALKS OF LIFE.
CEDA's INTEREST IN THESE MATTERS HAS BEEN OF LONG-STANDING.
INDEED, CHERYL SAUNDERS RECENT PUBLICATION " THE REFERENDUMS,
1984"' PUBLISHED AS PART OF THE CEDA STUDIES SERIES IS A
VALUABLE CONTRIBUTION TO PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES
INVOLVED.
BOTH PROPOSALS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE SIMULTANEOUS
ELECTIONS ( OR TERMS OF SENATORS) AND INTERCHANGE OF POWERS
ARE IMPORTANT STEPS TOWARDS BETTER GOVERNMENT IN AUSTRALIA.
THE SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS PROPOSAL WILL
BRING BETTER GOVERNMENT BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF ELECTIONS.
IN THE LAST 20 YEARS WE HAVE HAD TWELVE FEDERAL ELECTIONS,-OF
WHICH THREE HAVE BEEN HALF-SENATE ELECTIONS. THE ADDITIONAL
COST OF A HALF-SENATE ELECTION IN CURRENT TERMS is $ 19.2 MILLION. a / 2@
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS WILL SAVE
THE AUSTRALIAN TAXPAYER A GOOD DEAL OF MONEY. IT WILL
ALSO REDUCE THE DISRUPTION TO BUSINESS AND THE COMMUNITY
GENERALLY CAUSED BY TOO FREQUENT ELECTIONS THAT MEANS
SIMPLY, BETTER GOVERNMENT.
BUT THE REFERENDUM QUESTION ON WHICH I WISH TO FOCUS TODAY
IS THE INTERCHANGE OF POWERS PROPOSAL, WHICH WILL ENABLE THE
COMMONWEALTH AND STATES VOLUNTARILY TO REFER POWERS TO EACH
OTHER. THIS PROPOSAL, IF PASSED, WILL HAVE POTENTIALLY VERY
SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS FOR BUSINESS, LATER IN THIS SPEECHI
WILL ADDRESS THESE BENEFITS AT SOME LENGTH,
BUT BEFORE DOING SO I WISH TO MAKE SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
ABOUT THE OPPOSITION's POSITION ON THESE REFERENDUMS.
THESE TWO REFERENDUM PROPOSALS ARE BEING PUT TO THE AUSTRALIAN
PEOPLE BY A FEDERAL LABOR GOVERNMENT. THEY ARE BEING OPPOSED
BY THE OPPOSITION, UNDER MR PEACOCK AND MR SINCLAIR.
YET AS IT HAPPENS THESE REFERENDUM PROPOSALS ARE AS MUCH
OPPOSITION PROPOSALS As GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
THE OPPOSITION PARTIES HAVE PREVIOUSLY SUPPORTED THESE PROPOSALS
CONSISTENTLY BOTH IN OPPOSITION AND IN GOVERNMENT. YET NOW
THEY HAVE DECIDED TO CHANGE TOTALLY THEIR POSITION FOR THEIR
OWN SHORT TERM POLITICAL REAS") ONS.
CONSIDER, FIRST, THE SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS PROPOSAL.
THE FRASER GOVERNMENT ITSELF PUT THIS PROPOSAL TO THE
PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA IN 1977. MR PEACOCK AND MR SINCLAIR
SUPPORTED THE SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS REFERENDUM WHEN IT
WAS PUT TO THE PEOPLE IN 1977,
THEN DURING THE 1983 ELECTION CAMPAIGN MR FRASER, AS
PRIME MINISTER, GAVE AN UNEQUIVOCAL PROMISE TO PUT A
REFERENDUM FOR SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS IN HIS NEXT TERM
OF GOVERNMENT,
SO THAT WAS THE OPPOSITION'S POSITION IN GOVERNMENT. IN
OPPOSITION, UNDER MR PEACOCK AND MR SINCLAIR, THEY MAINTAINED
THAT POSITION UNTIL VERY RECENTLY.
LAST YEAR THE OPPOSITION SUPPORTED IN PARLIAMENT BOTH THE
SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS PROPOSAL AND THE INTERCHANGE OF
POWERS PROPOSAL, WHICH WERE TWO OF FIVE REFERENDUMS THE
GOVERNMENT WAS THEN PROPOSING. THEY SUPPORTED THEM AND
THEY VOTED FOR THEM. BUT NOT ONLY THAT, MR PEACOCK HIMSELF
SPOKE IN GLOWING TERMS OF THE MERITS OF BOTH THESE PROPOSALS.
SPEAKING IN PARLIAMENT ON 20 OCTOBER LAST YEAR MR PEACOCK SAID:
", THE OPPOSITION SUPPORTS THESE BILLS WE BELIEVE
THEY WILL CONTRIBUTE TO BETTER WORKING OF THIS PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE GOENET a/ 4s
HE STATED: " ALL THE PROPOSALS ARE USEFUL! INDEED SOME ARE VERY
NECESSARY. IF CARRIED, THE CHANGES WILL HELP TO
ENSURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION [ S MODERN AND RELEVANT
To AUSTRALIA'S NEEDS
BUT WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DECIDED TO PUT THESE
TWO PROPOSALS TO THE PEOPLE ON THE SAME DAY AS THE ELECTION?
MR PEACOCK AND MR SINCLAIR DECIDED IT WAS POLITICALLY
CONVENIENT TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSALS.
Now CONSIDER THE OPPOSITION'S POSITION, SPECIFICALLY ON THE
INTERCHANGE OF POWERS PROPOSAL.
THIS PROPOSAL WAS FIRST PUT FORWARD BY THE VICTORIAN LIBERAL
( HAMER) GOVERNMENT AT THE 1973 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
THE OPPOSITION HAVE SUPPORTED THE PROPOSAL EVER SINCE THE
1973 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION UNTIL NOW,
SHADOW ATTORNEY-GENERAL, SENATOR DURACK, IN MAY 1983 SAID OF
THIS PROPOSAL ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITION:
" IT HAD AS FAR AS I COULD SEF, INANIMOUS SUPPORT AT
im: AUh LJIDE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND IT SFFMS
A UShIUL FACILITY TO HAVE IN TIHE CONSTITUTION".
EVEN SIR JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN RAISED NO OBJECTION WHEN THE
PROPOSAL WAS DISCUSSED AT THE ADELAIDE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
LAST YEAR. AND, INCIDENTALLY, SENATOR BJELKE-PETERSEN VOTED
FOR THE PROPOSAL IN PARLIAMENT,
So THE SITUATION IS THIS. THE OPPOSITION WHEN THEY WERE IN
GOVERNMENT THEMSELVES PUT THE SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS
REFERENDUM TO THE PEOPLE IN 1977 AND CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED
IT EVER SINCE. THEY PROMISED IT IN THE 1983 ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
THE OPPOSITION THEMSELVES ORIGINATED THE INTERCHANGE OF
POWERS PROPOSAL AND HAVE CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED IT EVER SINCE.
MR PEACOCK SPOKE IN GLOWING TERMS ABOUT BOTH PROPOSALS IN
1983 AND THE OPPOSITION UNDER MR PEACOCK SUPPORTED BOTH
PROPOSALS AND VOTED FOR THEM IN PARLIAMENT.
BUT THEN WHEN THIS GOVERNMENT DECIDED TO PUT THE PROPOSALS
TO THE PEOPLE ON THE SAME DAY AS AN ELECTION MR PEACOCK AND
MR SINCLAIR SUDDENLYCRANGED THEIR MINDS. THEY DECIDED IT WAS'NT
POLITICALLY CONVENIENT TO MAINTAIN THEIR LONG-HELD POSITION.
THEY DECIDED THERE WAS SOME SHORT TERM POLITICAL GAIN TO BE
HAD IN OPPOSING THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE SAKE OF OPPOSING, SO
THEY TOTALLY REVERSED THEIR POSITION A FEW MONTHS AGO DESPITE
THEIR OWN FIRMLY HELD AND PUBLICLY STATED CONVICTION THAT BOTH
THESE PROPOSALS WERE IN THE INTERESTS OF THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE.
WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS PUT THEMSELVE. FIRST'AND PUT AUSTRALIA LAST,
I'VE HAD CAUSE TO DESCRIBE THIS OPPOSITION AS THE MOST
NEGATIVE OPPOSITION IN LIVING MEMORY AND THIS OPPOSITION
LEADER AS THE MOST NEGATIVE OPPOSITION LEADER 114 LIVING
MEMORY, IN VIEW OF THEIR BEHAVIOUR ON THESE REFERENDUM
PROPOSALS I THINK YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY.
THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO REASONABLE STANDARDS
OF CONSISTENCY AND HONESTY FROM THEIR POLITICAL LEADERS.
AND THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY HAS JUST AS MUCH OF AN INTEREST IN
THIS AS THE REST OF~ AUSTRALIA. THE OPPOSITION HAVE NOT
DISPLAYED THOSE STANDARDS ON THESE REFERENDUM PROPOSALS.
IN VOTING ON THE REFERENDUMS THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE WILL
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT PROPOSALS WHOSE MERITS ARE
IN FACT CLEAR TO BOTH SIDES OF POLITICS. BUT THEY WILL
ALSO IIAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THFY'VF HAT) ENOUGH OF
OPPOSITION' FOR THE SAKE OF OPPOSITION AND THAT THEY EXPECT
REASONABLE STANDARDS. OF CONSISTENCY FROM THEIR POLITICAL LEADERS&
I NOW TURN SPECIFICALLY TO THE INTERCHANGE OF POWERS PROPOSAL
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. THIS PROPOSAL
HAS SPFCIAL-RELEVANCE( TO THE ISSUE OF BUSINESS REGULATION.
IN DELIVERING MY PARTY'S POLICY SPEECH LAST WEEK, I SAID
THAT THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AUSTRALIA NEEDS THE SYSTEMATIC
REMOVAL OF UNNECESSARY INSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL IMPEDIMENTS
TO APPLYING OUR NATIONAL RESOURCES TO THEIR MOST PRODUCTIVE USES. 7' s
IUNDERTOOK THEN THAT OVER THE TERM OF THE NEXT PARLIAMENT
WE WILL REMOVE LEGISLATION AND REGULATION WHICH IS DAMAGING
TO BUSINESS AND EMPLOYMENT EXPANSION, AND WHICH IS NOT
JUSTIFIED AS AN EFFICIENT MEANS OF PROMOTING ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL OBJECTIVES,
EXAMPLES OF BUSINESS REGULATION LEADING TO ECONOMIC
INEFFICIENCY REQUIRE LITTLE ELABORATION TO A GROUP SUCH AS
THIS. DIFFERING REQUIREMENTS FOR PACKAGING, FOR EXAMPLE,
ADD GREATER COSTS TO BUSINESS AND THE CONSUMER WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIALLY ENHANCING PRODUCT QUALITY OR CONSUMER PROTECTION.
AGAIN, IN THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUICTION INDUSTRY, THERE ARE
PROBLEMS CAUSED BY DIFFERENT TESTING REQUIREMENTS AND
STANDARDS OF APPROVALl
THERE ARE OTHER PROBLEMS. SUCH AS THAT OF OVERLAP BETWEEN
STATE FEDERAL LAW LEADING TO UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OF
FUNCTIONS. A WELL-KNOWN EXAMPLE OF THIS, WHICH CAME TO
PROMINENCE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, IS THE OPERATION IN SOME
STATES OF DUAL COMMONWEALTH AND STATE MEAT INSPECTION SYSTEMS,
CONVERSCLYo LEGIGLATIVC C14ANGES AT CITtICR STATE OR FEDERAL
LEVEL CAN RESULT IN PROBLEMS OF GAPS IN REGULATORY COVERAGF
WHICH BENEFIT NEITHER BUSINESS OR CONSUMER.
IWISH TO TALK ABOUT THE SOLUTIONS TOWARD WHICH WE WILL BE
WORKING TOGETHER AFTER DECEMBER I AND THE MECHANISMS WE NEED
TO ACHIEVE THOSE SOLUTIONS, 6 / 8.
FIRST, IN SEPTEMBER, IN AN ADDRESS TO THE BUSINESS COUNCIL,
I ANNOUNCED AN INVITATION TO BUSINESS GROUPS AND TO THE ACTU
TO WORK WITH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ON PRIORITIES IN THE
REFORM OF BUSINESS REGULATION.
EARLY LASI MONIH, WITH A NUMBER OF KEY MINISTERS, I MET
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE BUSINESS COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA, THE
CONFEDERATION OF AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY, THE AUSTRALIAN CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE, THE NATIONAL FARMERS FEDERATION AND THE ACTU
AND ASKED THEM TO IDENTIFY CONCRETE AREAS WHERE REGULATION
WAS NOT COST-EFFICIENT OR BENEFICIAL.
THE UNDERTAKING I HAVE GIVEN IS CLEAR
" WE WILL EXAMINE CRITICALLY THE WHOLE RANGE OF
BUSINESS REGULATION, MOST IMPORTANTLY WITH A VIEW
TO ASSESSING ITS CONTRIBUTION TO LONG-TERM GROWTH
PERFORMANCE. WE WILL MAINTAIN REGULATION WHICH, UPON CAREFUL
ANALYSIS, CLEARLY PROMOTES ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY,
OR WHICH IS CLEARLY AN EFFECTIVE MEANS OF ACHIEVING
MORE EQUITABLE INCOME DISTRIBUTION.
AND WE WILL ABANDON REGULATION WHICH FAILS THESE
TESTS".
OUR SECOND INITIATIVE WILL TAKE PLACE IN THE FIRST WEEKS OF SITTING
OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT. My GOVERNMENT WILL ESTABLISH AN
ALL-PARTY PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE, TO BE CALLED THE JOINT
STANDING COMMITTEE FOR BUSINESS AFFAIRS, THIS WILL HAVE A
COMPREHENSIVE BRIEF TO EXAMINE EXISTING AREAS OF REGULATION
AND PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION AFFECTING BUSINESS,
OUR THIRD INITIATIVE, AND MY MAJOR REASON-FOR BEING HERE
TODAY, IS TO REMIND YOU OF THE CENTRAL IMPORTANCE TO US ALL
OF THE INTERCHANGE OF POWERS REFERENDUM. THIS MEASURE
OFFERS US A VITAL MECHANISM FOR THE STATES AND COMMONWEALTH
TO FIND THE RIGHT TIER OF GOVERNMENT AT WHICH THE RIGHT KIND
OF REGULATION SHOULD OCCUR.
ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS OF BUSINESS REGULATION OF THE
KIND I HAVE OUTLINED HAVE FOUNDERED IN THE PAST ON AN
UNDERSTANDABLE RELUCTANCE ON THE PART OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
TO DISCUSS THE REFERRAL OF POWERS WITHIN A CONSTITUTIONAL
FRAMEWORK WHICH PERMITS SUCH REFERRAL ON A ONE-WAY BASIS
ONLY THAT IS FROM THE STATES TO THE COMMONWEALTH. THE
PASSAGE OF THIS REFERENDUM WILL PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
NEW SPIRIT OF CO-OPERALTION IN FEDERAL/ STATE RELATIONS IN
TACKLING THE PROBLEM OF BUSINESS REGULATION.
THE INTERCHANGE OF POWERS PROPOSAL DOES THIS BY ENABLING THE
COMMONWEALTH TO REFER THESE EXCLUSIVE LAW-MAKING POWERS TO
THE STATES AND BY CLARIFYING THE TERMS ON WHICH THE STATES
CAN REFER POWERS TO THE COMMONWEALTH.
IT ALLOWS THE STATES TO PUT CONDITIONS AND TIME CONSTRAINTS
ON ANY POWERS REFERRED TO THE COMMONWEALTHi AND ALLOWS THE
STATES TO CONTINUE TO EXERCISE THEIR OWN POWERS AND TO
REVOKE THE REFERENCE OF POWER, AND VICE VERSA.
AS THE PREMIER,, MR BURKE, HAS SAID PREVIOUSLY, THE
INTERCHANGE PROPU5AL ' MAKES A LOT OF SENSE". EQUALLY
IMPORTANT FOR THE STATES IS TIIC rACT TlIAT NOTHhING CAN DC
FORCED ON ANY STATE.
IN STRESSING THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS REFERENDUM, I EMPHASISE
AGAIN THAT IT SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED BIPARTISAN SUPPORT,
INDEED.-I CAN-DO NO BETTER THAN TO QUOTE THE WORDS OF
DICK HAMER, THEN LIBERAL PREMIER OF VICTORIA, IN MOVING
THE INTERCHANGE OF POWERS PROPOSAL AT THE HOBART CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION IN 1976.
HE SAID: " IN THIS MOTION THE CONVENTION HAS ITS GREATEST
SINGLE CHANCE OF ACHiEVING A REALLY IMPORTANT CHANGE IN THE
CONSTITUTION, WHICH WILL AT ONE STROKE GIVE IT A FLEXIBILITY
AND RESPONSIVENESS IT DOES NOT YET HAVE, AND AN ABILITY TO
DEAL WITH SITUATIONS AS THEY ARISE, WITHOUT ANY OF THE
PARTNERS FEDERAL OR STATE SURRENDERING ANY OF THE POWERS
OR DISCRETIONS THEY NOW HAVE".
THE PASSAGE OF THE INTERCHANGE OF POWERS PROPOSAL ON
DECEMBER 1 WILL ALLOW JOINT ACTION BY COMMONWEALTH AND STATES
ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS AND IN A CO-OPERATIVE SPIRIT. ./ 11.
THERE ARE A . NUMBER OF AREAS CRYING OUT FOR SOLUTION, WHICH
CAN BE HELPED BY THE INTERCHANGE PROPOSAL AND THE
GOVERNMENT'S REVIEW OF REGULATION6
THE FIRST AREA IS COMPANY LAW AND BUSINESS LAW IN GENERAL.
DESPITE A GREAT DEAL OF COMMITTED WORK BY THE STATE. S AND
COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENTS OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS, THE
CO-OPERATIVE COMPANIES SCHEME SEEMS TO BE VIEWED BY THE
PEOPLE IN IT BUSINESSES AND THEIR ADVISERS AS IN NEED
OF RE-EVALUATION AND SIMPLIFICATION.
THE INTERCHANGE OF POWERS PROPOSAL WOULD MEAN THAT THERE
COULD BE GREATER RATIONALISATION OF OUR INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
SYSTEMS TO THE BENEFIT OF UNIONISTS AND INDUSTRY GENERALLY.
THE PROBLEMS OF DUAL REGISTRATION OF UNIONS IN FEDERAL AND
STATE JURISDICTIONS COULD BE OVERCOME BY DEVISING A SINGLE
SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION FOR BOTH JURISDICTIONS$
THE INTERCHANGE PROPOSAL WOULD ALSO MEAN THAT, WHERE A STATE
WAS IN AGREEMENT, GAPS COULD BE FILLED IN FEDERAL LAW
RELATING TO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES SUCH AS INSURANCE.
THE COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT. HAS THIS YEAR STREAMLINED AND
CLARIFIED THE LAW WHICH GOVERNS-INSURANCE CONTRACTS,
HOWEVER, TO EXTEND THE LAW TO -ALL INSURANCE COMPANIES AND
OFFICES IN THE COUNTRY REQUIRES JOINT LEGISLATION BY BOTH
STATE AND COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTS& 12.
AS A FINAL EXAMPLE, THE INTERCHANGE PROPOSAL WOULD ENABLE
THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE STATES TO TAKE STEPS TO ACHIEVE AN
INTEGRATED COURT SYSTEMi THEREBY OVERCOMING JURISDICTIONAL
UNCERTAINTIES IN A NUMBER OF AREAS,
MOST OF THE COMMONWEALTH'S POWERS ARE CONCURRENT, THE PROPOSAL
WILL HAVE NO APPLICATION. TO THESE SINCE THE STATES RETAIN
THE SAME POWERS TO LEGISLATE SUBJECT ONLY TO ANY OVERRIDING
COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATION. ONE OF THE FEW EXCLUSIVE
COMMONWEALTH POWERS AND THE ONE WHICH HAS ATTRACTED SOME
INTEREST IS THE POWER TO IMPOSE EXCISE DUTIES. THE OFFICIAL
' NO' CASE MAINTAINS THAT THIS ' IS THE REAL REASON FOR THE
PROPOSAL BEING PUT FORWARD. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM
THE TRUTH.
THE OPPOSITION, CONSISTENT WITH THE NEGATIVE AND OPPORTUNISTIC
APPROACH THEY HAVE TAKEN THROUGHOUT THIS ELECTION CAMPAIGN,
HAVE ALSO SUGGESTED THAT A MAJOR REASON FOR THIS REFERENDUM
PROPOSAL IS TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE COMMONWEALTH TO
TRANSFER TAXING POWERS TO THE STATES,-AND TO HONOUR ITS
COMMITMENT. NOT TO RAISE THE OVERALL TAX BURDEN.
THIS IS BLATANT RUBBISH. THE REASONS FOR'SUPPORTING THE
REFERENDUM HAVE ALREADY BEEN OUTLINED. IF STATES WISH TO
RAISE TAXES, OR INDEED TO REDUCE TAXES, THEY DO NOT REQUIRE
THE INTERCHANGE POWERS. WHAT A. POSITIVE OUTCOME ON THIS
REFERENDUM WOULD PERMIT IS A GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS IF THE STATES THEMSELVES,
REPEAT THEMSELVES, PUT FORWARD PARTICULAR PROPOSALS IN REGARD
TO TAXATION.
IT IS SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE, HOWEVER, FOR THE COMMONWEALTH
TO FORCE THE STATES TO CHANGE THEIR TAXING ARRANGEMENTS
OR THE LEVEL OF TAXES IMPOSED.
IN THIS TIME OF ECONOMIC RECOVERY, WE HAVE AN EXCELLENT
OPPORTUNITY, AS WELL AS A GREAT NEED, TO RE-DOUBLE OUR
EFFORTS TO REFORM POLICY AND INSTITUTIONS IN MANY AREAS.
IMPORTANT TO LONG TERM ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE.
THE GREAT TASK OF REVIEWING THE GREAT VOLUME O'F LAWS AND
REGULATIONS AFFECTING BUSINESS WHICH HAVE ACCUMULATED OVER
THE PAST 84 YEARS OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION HAS ALREADY
BEGUN. IN THE PERIOD AHEAD WE WILL BE WORKING WITH A WIDE
RANGE OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY GROUPS TO REMOVE UNNECESSARY
INSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL OBSTACLES TO NATIONAL ECONOMIC
RECONSTRUCTION.
THE CHALLENGE IS CONSIDERABLE. IT IS NOT A JOB FOR ONE LEVEL
OF GOVERNMENT ALONE. IT IS ONE ON WHICH WE MUST ALL PULL
TOGETHER. EVERY MECHANISM WHICH WE CAN HAVE AT OUR DISPOSAL
TO ASSIST US IN REVIEWING REGULATION IS IMPORTANT.
THE INTERCHANGE OF POWERS PROPOSAL IS THEREFORE CENTRAL TO
THIS PROCESS. IT CAN PROVIDE THE MECHANISM THROUGH WHICH
FEDERAL-STATE CO-OPERATION IN SIMPLIFYING BUSINESS REGULATION
CAN OCCUR.
I COMMEND THE REFERENDUM PROPOSALS TO YOU.