In a report released today, the Productivity Commission has found that the Australian Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) and the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement (TTMRA) have been effective overall in achieving their objectives of assisting the integration of the Australian and New Zealand economies and promoting competitiveness.

These two schemes provide a practical way to overcome regulatory differences inappropriately restricting goods and labour mobility. They are important government initiatives that involve significant inter-governmental cooperation across ten governments at the national, state and territory levels.

Commissioner Tony Hinton said: 'The Commission’s evaluation of the schemes identified a range of potential improvements, as well as some other actions by the involved governments, that would enhance their effectiveness.'

The Commission suggested that widening the scope of mutual recognition obligations to apply to regulations relating to the use of goods could be considered by a review group of officials.

Work should continue on reaching agreement on regulatory differences to enable elimination of the TTMRA’s six special exemptions. This would be facilitated by implementing better focussed cooperation programs that have been set up for these six areas.

The effectiveness of both schemes would be enhanced by a coordinated awareness campaign on the benefits and obligations of mutual recognition. This could usefully be directed at regulators, local governments and relevant industry and occupational associations.

The Report will be used by the ten governments that requested the evaluation in considering possible changes to the two schemes.

Preliminaries
Cover, Copyright, Foreword, Terms of reference, Contents, Abbreviations, Overview, Findings

1 Introduction
1.1 Background to mutual recognition
1.2 Previous reviews
1.3 The reference
1.4 The Commission’s approach
1.5 Structure of the report

2 Mutual recognition framework
2.1 Legislative environment
2.2 Mutual recognition mechanisms
2.3 Coverage of the MRA and TTMRA

3 Objectives and assessment criteria
3.1 Clear and credible objectives
3.2 Effectiveness
3.3 Efficiency
3.4 Practicality
3.5 Sovereignty
3.6 International obligations and sovereignty
3.7 Conclusion

4 Impact of mutual recognition
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Impacts on goods mobility
4.3 Impacts on labour mobility
4.4 Prices, wages, costs, economies of scale, and standards
4.5 Standard Setting
4.6 Other Impacts
4.7 Conclusion

5 Operation of mutual recognition
5.1 Mutual recognition of goods
5.2 Mutual recognition of registered occupations
5.3 Appeal processes
5.4 Monitoring and compliance systems

6 Regulation and standards processes
6.1 Regulation and mutual recognition
6.2 Standard setting

7 Permanent exemptions and exclusions to mutual recognition
7.1 Permanent exemptions: goods
7.2 Permanent exemptions: occupations
7.3 Exclusions

8 Special exemptions under the TTMRA
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Hazardous substances, industrial chemicals and dangerous goods
8.3 Therapeutic goods
8.4 Road vehicles
8.5 Gas appliances
8.6 Electromagnetic compatibility and radiocommunications equipment
8.7 Consumer goods

9 Scope of the schemes
9.1 Exceptions applying to goods
9.2 Exceptions applying to occupations
9.3 Expanding the schemes

A Submissions and meetings

B 1998 Review Recommendations

C Registered occupations and licences under legislation

D Other approaches to mutual recognition
European Union
APEC
United States of Americay
Canada

E Interstate mobility by occupation
E.1 Introduction
E.2 Data
E.3 Interstate migration
E.4 Model outline
E.5 Results

F Minimum Energy Performance Standards
Electric storage water heaters
Lighting ballasts

G Variations in food standards
How non alignment occurs
Issues
Examples of variations
Other DOHA and FSANZ Options

References