Senator STOTT DESPOJA(8.44 p.m.) —I, too, find it necessary to respond to the comments made by the minister. Firstly, in relation to harmonisation, I was not suggesting—and I am certainly not that brave person you referred to who was—that harmonisation in itself is a bad thing. I recognise, however, that harmonisation or standardisation of laws does have potentially negative consequences if you are talking about potentially inequitable outcomes or standards.

The Australian Democrats, as I have stated for the record a number of times, are committed to the mutual recognition principle. There is absolutely no suggestion that we are opposing that per se. We see the potential for great, positive and progressive things as a result of mutual recognition principles. Indeed, in other parliaments in this country we have supported this concept. However, we do get very concerned when this concept is used to whittle away, reduce or weaken in some way particular laws and standards. I think, as Senator Margetts has rightly commented, when it comes to consumer product safety standards we are looking at being on the losing end of the deal here.

We are reducing, as a consequence of this particular bill, the standards that we have in this country. I have commended those standards and commended the former government for introducing those particular consumer product safety standards in the Trade Practices Act. That is why I have made a plea and requested an assurance from this government that they will not harmonise away those standards. Certainly there is the potential for that to happen, as it is indeed already happening in this bill.

I understand that the minister would be reluctant to acknowledge that his acceptance of this amendment shows that his bill has some deficiencies. I am probably a little naive to suggest, Senator Ellison, that you stand up and say that it does. But certainly that is the only way that the Australian Democrats can read it. I am curious as to why you would accept the Labor Party amendment if you thought that the bill was sufficient without that.

I return to an earlier comment in relation to privacy and privacy laws in this country. I took on board your comments, Senator Ellison, in relation to section 38 of the bill in relation to receipt of information. You said to me that privacy was protected or commented on or addressed in this particular bill in section 38. I say to you that the arguments that you used in this chamber actually support the argument that I put forward, that is, that it has to be included in section 38 of this bill because the current laws in Australia are inadequate for the purposes of dealing with a country like New Zealand. That is why it has been included.

Of course we have to do something about protecting the receipt of information. It would be okay for us when sending information that is received in New Zealand; their information would be protected under their laws, under their privacy arrangements. But information received in Australia—that is, New Zealanders sending some kind of information to Australia—is not protected because our privacy laws in this country are blatantly inadequate. That is why that section has been included in the bill. So I suggest, Minister, that your comments earlier in this debate in relation to the inclusion of privacy and receipt of information in this bill simply bear out the Democrat claims in relation to privacy laws in this country.