Mutual Recognition (Tasmania) Act 1993

The Act defines or relies on several key concepts. The Commonwealth Act is the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 of the Commonwealth, as originally enacted and as amended by the Mutual Recognition Amendment Act 2021. It is the substantive law that sets out rights of mutual recognition, temporary exemptions, and administrative provisions. Participating jurisdiction is defined in section 3(1) of the Tasmanian Act by reference to the concept in the Commonwealth Act: it includes any State or Territory that has referred power or adopted the Commonwealth Act under paragraph 51(xxxvii). In practice, all Australian states and territories except Western Australia participate (Western Australia has a different arrangement under its own legislation). Adoption under section 4 means that the Commonwealth Act, as specified, is taken to be Tasmanian law. This is distinct from a mere reference of power; adoption under section 51(xxxvii) gives the Commonwealth Act force as a Commonwealth law but also makes it part of Tasmanian law by incorporation. The reference of power under section 5 is a separate mechanism: Tasmania refers to the Commonwealth Parliament the matters to which the Commonwealth Act relates. This reference ensures that the Commonwealth Parliament can amend the Commonwealth Act without needing each state to legislate again, so long as the reference remains in force. The reference can be terminated by proclamation (section 5(3)), subject to parliamentary approval (section 6).

The 2022 amendments introduced new concepts. Registration, as defined in section 6A(1), means a registration, licence, approval or other authorisation given under law that authorises an individual to carry on an occupation or undertake an activity covered by that occupation. This is broad: it covers everyone from lawyers and accountants to electricians and health practitioners. Registration authority means the person who gives individual registrations for an occupation in a participating jurisdiction. In Tasmania, that might be the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Tasmania) boards, the Legal Profession Board, the Building Services Authority, and so on. Activity and occupation are defined by reference to section 4(1) of the Commonwealth Act, which contains definitions for the substantive scheme. Event captures the triggers for permissible disclosure: suspension or cancellation of registration, refusal to renew, imposition of a condition, disciplinary action, or commencement of civil or criminal proceedings relevant to the registration or the carrying on of the occupation. Information that may be disclosed includes the individual’s name, address, any other information necessary to identify them, information about the registration and conditions, and information about the event and its outcome.

Good faith is the precondition for the protection from liability under section 6B. The shield applies only if information is given in good faith under section 6A of the Tasmanian Act or under specific sections of the Commonwealth Act (sections 33, 37, 42M, 42N, 42P, 42V). The protection covers civil liability, criminal liability, breach of confidentiality, privacy, secrecy duties, and breach of professional ethics or standards. It also relieves the State of Tasmania from any liability it might otherwise have had for another person’s conduct under this provision.

Temporary exemptions for goods under section 7 allow the Governor to make regulations for the purposes of section 15 of the Commonwealth Act. That section permits temporary exemptions from mutual recognition for certain goods on grounds such as public health, safety, or environmental protection. The Tasmanian Act does not itself create the exemption power; it merely authorises the regulation-making to give effect to the Commonwealth Act’s provisions.

The Act directly affects four groups. First, individuals who are registered to carry on an occupation in any participating jurisdiction and who wish to practice or provide services in Tasmania. Under the Commonwealth Act as adopted, such individuals can obtain deemed registration in Tasmania without undergoing additional training, examinations, or assessment, subject to any conditions or limitations. This includes tradespeople (electricians, plumbers, builders), professionals (lawyers, accountants, engineers, health practitioners), and service providers (real estate agents, travel agents, security guards). The Act removes the requirement to requalify, which saves time and money.

Second, registration authorities in Tasmania. These bodies (such as the Tasmanian Board of the Medical Board of Australia, the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania, the Electrical Licensing Board, etc.) are the entities that must process applications for mutual recognition under the Commonwealth Act. They are also the entities that can disclose information under section 6A. The 2022 amendments explicitly override any written law relating to confidentiality, privacy or secrecy, so registration authorities can now share information across jurisdictions even if local privacy statutes would otherwise forbid it. This imposes a compliance burden: authorities must decide whether to disclose, what to disclose, and when. They also face the risk of legal challenge if they disclose information in bad faith (though section 6B protects them if they act in good faith). The permissive nature of section 6A (the word is “may”, not “must”) means that authorities have discretion but also need policies to ensure consistent and lawful exercise of that discretion.

Third, individuals whose registration is the subject of an adverse event. If a Tasmanian registration authority suspends, cancels, or imposes conditions on a person’s registration, or refuses renewal, or takes disciplinary action, or if civil or criminal proceedings are commenced that are relevant to the registration, that authority may disclose information about the individual to registration authorities in other participating jurisdictions. The individual has no right to prevent such disclosure (section 6A(3) says “may give” despite any law relating to confidentiality, privacy or secrecy). The protection from liability in section 6B means the individual cannot sue for damages for breach of confidence or privacy if the disclosure was in good faith. This is a significant loss of privacy protection for regulated individuals.

Fourth, the Tasmanian Government and Parliament. Section 6 requires parliamentary approval for proclamations that terminate adoptions or references. This affects the government’s ability to exit the scheme. The Treasurer is the interim administrative minister until an Administrative Arrangements order is made. The government may also be affected by the liability relief in section 6B(2), which relieves the State of any liability it might have had for another person’s actions under the disclosure provisions.

From a market perspective, the Act reduces barriers to entry for interstate service providers, which increases competition in Tasmanian markets for services. This can lower prices for consumers and increase choice. However, it also means that Tasmanian-based providers face competition from out-of-state providers who may not have the same historical ties to Tasmanian standards (though the Commonwealth Act includes provisions for conditions to protect local standards in some circumstances). The disclosure provisions arguably reduce the risk of ‘forum shopping’ by professionals who might move jurisdictions to avoid disciplinary histories, but they also increase the surveillance burden on regulated persons.

The Mutual Recognition (Tasmania) Act 1993 does not itself create many duties or rights in relation to mutual recognition; those are largely found in the Commonwealth Act. However, the Tasmanian Act establishes specific duties and rights related to information disclosure and to the termination mechanism.

Duty of registration authorities to consider disclosure: Section 6A is permissive, not mandatory. A Tasmanian registration authority “may give” information to another jurisdiction’s registration authority when an event occurs. There is no duty to disclose, but there is also no prohibition on disclosure, despite any written law relating to confidentiality, privacy or secrecy. This creates a legal right to disclose. The authority must determine whether it is appropriate to disclose in each case. The absence of a mandatory duty means an authority could choose not to disclose, but if it does disclose in good faith, it is protected.

Right to disclosure without liability: Section 6B(1) gives registration authorities (and any person who gives information under the specified sections of the Commonwealth Act) a right to be free from civil or criminal liability in respect of giving that information, provided it is given in good faith. This is not a blanket immunity: the authority must have acted honestly and without malice. If bad faith is alleged, the authority may need to defend itself. The provision also states that giving the information is not a breach of any duty of confidentiality, privacy, or secrecy imposed by law, and not a breach of professional ethics or standards. This removes the typical legal obstacles to sharing information across borders.

State immunity: Section 6B(2) relieves the State of Tasmania of any liability it might have had for another person having done anything as described in subsection (1). This means that if a registration authority (as a State instrumentality) discloses information, the State cannot be sued for that disclosure, provided the authority acted in good faith. This is a significant limitation on the rights of individuals who might seek compensation for unauthorised disclosure.

Rights of individuals in relation to disclosure: The Act does not give individuals any right to be notified of disclosure, to access the information disclosed, or to challenge it. The individual has no right to prevent disclosure under section 6A(3) because it overrides confidentiality laws. However, the permissive nature means the individual could lobby the authority not to disclose. If the authority discloses in bad faith, the individual could potentially sue for defamation or other torts, because the protection only applies where information is given in good faith. The individual bears the burden of proving bad faith, which is difficult.

Parliament’s rights: The Tasmanian Parliament has the right to approve or reject draft proclamations under section 6. A proclamation to terminate adoption or terminate the reference cannot be made unless a draft is first approved by each House. The approval can occur either by explicit approval or by the expiration of five sitting days without a motion to disallow, provided no motion is pending or any such motion is withdrawn or negatived. This gives the legislature a veto over the government’s decision to exit the mutual recognition scheme. It is a check on executive power.

The Governor’s power: The Governor has the right to fix a termination day by proclamation, but that right is subjected to parliamentary approval. The Act does not specify any criteria for fixing a day; effectively, the government has discretion but must obtain legislative approval. This creates a political duty: the government must be able to persuade Parliament before it can terminate.

Reference of power: Section 5(1) refers matters to the Commonwealth Parliament. This is a duty on the part of Tasmania to allow the Commonwealth to legislate on mutual recognition matters. The reference can be terminated, but until then, the Commonwealth can amend the Commonwealth Act (within the scope of the reference) without needing Tasmania’s further consent. However, section 5(4) was amended in 2021 to remove the requirement for approval of terms by all participating jurisdictions. That allows the Commonwealth to amend the Act without unanimous state agreement, increasing Commonwealth flexibility at the cost of state control.

The Mutual Recognition (Tasmania) Act 1993 does not itself contain penalty provisions or enforcement mechanisms. The Act is a procedural and constitutional instrument. The substantive mutual recognition scheme, including offences and penalties, is contained in the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act 1992, which is adopted by the Tasmanian Act. For example, the Commonwealth Act includes provisions relating to false representations about registration, misuse of information, and offences for failing to comply with conditions of deemed registration. Those provisions, once adopted, have the force of law in Tasmania.

The Tasmanian Act does, however, create a potential enforcement mechanism for the information disclosure regime. If a registration authority discloses information under section 6A in bad faith, the individual affected may have a civil remedy for breach of confidence, defamation, or negligence, because the protection in section 6B only applies to good faith disclosures. The individual could pursue that remedy in the Tasmanian Supreme Court or the relevant civil tribunal. The Act itself provides no statutory penalty for bad faith disclosure; it simply removes the liability shield. So the enforcement of the “good faith” requirement is through common law torts, not through a statutory penalty. This places the burden on the individual to sue.

Conversely, if a registration authority fails to disclose information in circumstances where it might be expected to (e.g., to protect public safety), that failure does not carry a penalty under the Tasmanian Act. The permissive “may” means the authority is not legally compelled to disclose. However, if the authority does disclose and it later turns out that it should not have (e.g., because it did not act in good faith), the authority loses its protection.

Section 7 allows the Governor to make regulations for temporary exemptions for goods. Those regulations might include penalties for non-compliance, but that would be in the regulations, not in the Act itself. The Act does not specify any maximum penalty level.

The enforcement of the mutual recognition scheme more broadly (e.g., a person practising in Tasmania without deemed registration) would be handled under the Tasmanian local law that regulates the occupation, not under this Act. For example, if an electrician from New South Wales operates in Tasmania without the proper deemed registration, the Electrical Safety Act could be enforced. The Commonwealth Act provides a defence if the person has deemed registration under mutual recognition, but the enforcement body would be the Tasmanian regulator. This Act does not create any new enforcement bodies; it relies on existing state authorities.

The Act’s enforcement of the termination process is through the requirement for parliamentary approval. If a proclamation were made without approval, it would be invalid. The Act does not specify a penalty for making such a proclamation; the remedy would be judicial review.

From an economic perspective, the lack of penalties in the Act itself is a compliance benefit for registration authorities: they are not directly fined for mishandling disclosures, but they face litigation risk for bad faith acts. The Commonwealth Act’s penalties for false representations about mutual recognition provide a deterrent against fraud. Overall, the enforcement structure is light-touch, reliant on existing legal remedies and Commonwealth provisions.

The Act interacts with several other laws in significant ways. First and most obviously, it adopts and incorporates the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (as amended). That Act is the substantive law. The Tasmanian Act is merely the vehicle for that adoption. The Commonwealth Act will prevail over any inconsistent Tasmanian law to the extent of the inconsistency, by virtue of the adoption under section 51(xxxvii). For example, if a Tasmanian professional registration Act requires three years of supervised experience for a specific trade, but the Commonwealth Act allows deemed registration for a person with equivalent experience from another state, the Commonwealth Act overrides the Tasmanian requirement. This is a direct override of local regulatory autonomy.

Second, section 6A(3) overrides any written law relating to confidentiality, privacy or secrecy in Tasmania. This is a sweeping override. It means that Tasmanian privacy legislation (such as the Personal Information Protection Act 2004, if applicable) or common law duties of confidence cannot prevent a registration authority from disclosing information to another jurisdiction. The Act does not require the authority to ignore those laws entirely; it merely says the authority “may give” the information despite those laws. The authority could choose not to disclose, but if it wants to disclose, the other laws do not apply. This creates tension with privacy protections that individuals may expect. For example, if a health practitioner has disciplinary proceedings that are not yet concluded, disclosure could affect their reputation even if they are later cleared.

Third, section 6B(1)(b) declares that giving information under the specified provisions is not to be regarded as a breach of any duty of confidentiality, privacy or secrecy imposed by law. This is a substantive interaction: it modifies the common law of confidence and any statutory secrecy duties. It also states it is not a breach of professional ethics or standards or unprofessional conduct (section 6B(1)(c)). This could affect how professional bodies (e.g., the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) view disclosures; they cannot discipline a practitioner for disclosing information as authorized.

Fourth, section 7 interacts with the power to make regulations under any other Act. It says the Governor may make regulations for the purposes of section 15 of the Commonwealth Act (temporary exemptions for goods) without limiting any other regulation-making power. So it is additional to powers under, for example, the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 or the Food Act 2003 if those Acts allow for exemptions. The term “temporary exemptions for goods” suggests interaction with product safety laws, quarantine laws, and consumer protection laws. The Commonwealth Act’s section 15 allows exemptions on grounds of health, safety, environment, etc. The Tasmanian regulations could exempt goods from mutual recognition requirements that would otherwise apply, potentially overriding the Trade Practices Act or Australian Consumer Law to a limited extent.

Fifth, the Administrative Arrangements Act 1990 is relevant because section 8 of this Act assigns administration to the Treasurer until an order is made under that Act. Once an order is made, administration may be assigned to another minister. That interacts with the machinery of government.

Sixth, the Commonwealth Constitution section 51(xxxvii) is the constitutional foundation. The Act relies on the referral of power by Tasmania to the Commonwealth. Without that referral, the Commonwealth Act might not apply in Tasmania (or might only apply by separate state adoption). The mutual recognition scheme is built on a cooperative framework that includes all states except Western Australia. The Act interacts with similar legislation in other states (e.g., Mutual Recognition (New South Wales) Act 1992, etc.). Those state Acts are uniform but not identical; the Tasmanian Act’s termination provisions and information-sharing provisions were amended in 2021 and 2022, so slight differences exist.

Finally, the Act interacts with freedom of interstate trade and commerce under section 92 of the Constitution. The mutual recognition scheme is intended to reduce barriers to trade in services and goods, and the Act helps implement that constitutional guarantee in a practical way. However, section 92 is a constitutional limit on state legislation; the Act is designed to be consistent with it. The disclosure provisions could potentially be challenged under the implied constitutional freedom of personal privacy (if one is recognized) or under other implied guarantees, but no such challenge is recorded in the source.

The Mutual Recognition (Tasmania) Act 1993 has been amended twice, as indicated by the source text. The amendments are noted in the section headings and by the references in the text.

The first amendment was by No. 20 of 2021, the Mutual Recognition (Tasmania) Amendment Act 2021, which applied from 22 December 2021. This amendment made several changes. It omitted subsection 3(2) (which is not reproduced in the source, but the deletion is noted). It amended section 4 by substituting subsections (2) and (3) and inserting subsection (4). The effect was to adopt the amendments made to the Commonwealth Act by the Mutual Recognition Amendment Act 2021 separately from the original adoption, and to create a mechanism for terminating the adoption of those amendments without affecting the original adoption. It inserted section 4A (Termination of adoptions), giving the Governor power to fix a termination day for either the original adoption or the 2021 amendments adoption. It amended section 5 by substituting subsection (1) to refer the matters to which the Commonwealth Act as amended by the 2021 Commonwealth Act relates, and by substituting subsection (4) to remove the requirement that the reference require approval of terms by all participating jurisdictions. It substituted section 6 to require parliamentary approval for the new proclamations under section 4A or 5(3). It also amended section 6 by substituting the entire section (now requiring approval for drafts of proclamations under both sections 4A and 5(3)).

The second amendment was by No. 29 of 2022, the [presumably some amending Act], which applied from 14 December 2022. It inserted sections 6A (Disclosure of information to registration authorities in participating jurisdictions) and 6B (Protection from liability for giving information). This amendment added the information-sharing regime. The source does not give the short title of the 2022 Act, but it is likely a broader Act that included this amendment.

The original Act itself was enacted in 1993 and amended in only these two instances. The Act’s commencement was to be by proclamation; the source does not provide the proclamation date. Because the Act is still in force and the 2022 provisions are marked as applied, it is currently operative.

The amendment history reveals that the Tasmanian Act was substantially rewritten in 2021 to align with changes to the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act (the 2021 Commonwealth amendments) and to remove the requirement for unanimous state consent to Commonwealth amendments. That change shifts power to the Commonwealth. The 2022 amendment added a wholly new part dealing with interstate information sharing, which was not present in the original 1993 Act. This suggests that the mutual recognition scheme is evolving toward greater cross-jurisdictional data exchange, reflecting concerns about regulatory gaps in disciplinary matters.

From an economic standpoint, the 2021 amendment that removed the need for unanimous consent reduces the transaction cost of future amendments to the Commonwealth Act. The Commonwealth can amend the Act without negotiating with all states, which may speed up regulatory improvements but also reduces states’ bargaining power. The 2022 addition of information-sharing imposes a compliance cost on registration authorities, but also potentially reduces the risk of professionals moving jurisdictions to avoid discipline, which could improve public confidence in the portability of registrations.

The source text does not refer to any court cases involving the Mutual Recognition (Tasmania) Act 1993. Because the Act is an enabling instrument that adopts the Commonwealth Act, litigation is more likely to arise under the Commonwealth Act or under the local regulatory Acts that are overridden. The Tasmanian Act itself has not been the subject of reported litigation in the High Court or the Supreme Court of Tasmania, as far as the source indicates.

However, the substantive mutual recognition scheme has been considered by the High Court in cases such as Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511, which concerned the cross-vesting scheme, but that is not directly relevant. The case of Grain Pool of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 202 CLR 479 discussed section 51(xxxvii) and state referrals, but not specifically the Tasmanian Act. The source does not mention these cases, so they cannot be cited. The analyst must not invent.

Potential areas of litigation that could arise under the Tasmanian Act include: challenge to the validity of a proclamation terminating adoption or reference on the ground that parliamentary approval was not obtained properly; challenge to disclosure of information under section 6A on the basis that it was not in good faith, leading to a claim for damages (but the liability shield would be argued); challenge to the scope of the reference of power if the Commonwealth attempts to amend the Commonwealth Act in a way that goes beyond the matters referred; challenge to regulations made under section 7 on the ground that they exceed the scope of the Commonwealth Act’s section 15. None of these have been reported.

The absence of litigation suggests the Act has operated smoothly within the cooperative federalism framework. But the 2022 amendments are recent, and disclosure disputes may yet arise. The protection from liability in section 6B(2) for the State is a strong dog-leg that likely deters litigation because the State would argue that any disclosure is protected unless bad faith is proven. Individuals who challenge disclosures may find it difficult to prove bad faith, as it requires evidence of malice or lack of honest belief.

From a risk perspective, registration authorities should be aware that even though litigation is not yet prevalent, the increasing use of information-sharing could lead to disputes. The Act does not provide individuals with notice or a right to be heard before disclosure, which could be challenged under natural justice principles in future. However, the Act expressly overrides confidentiality laws, which suggests Parliament intended to exclude natural justice rights in this context. Whether that is effective is a matter for the courts.

Several aspects of the Act are easy to misunderstand or overlook. First, the Act does not itself grant mutual recognition rights. A practitioner cannot point solely to this Act to justify practising in Tasmania; they must rely on the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act 1992 as adopted. The Tasmanian Act is the jurisdictional hook; the substantive rights are elsewhere. Many readers may skip the Commonwealth Act and think the Tasmanian Act is the whole scheme. It is not.

Second, the Act has two separate adoptions (section 4(1) and 4(3)). The adoption of the original Commonwealth Act and the adoption of the 2021 amendments are severable. A termination of the 2021 amendments under section 4A(1)(b) does not affect the earlier adoption. This means that if Tasmania terminates only the 2021 amendments, the mutual recognition scheme would revert to the pre-2021 version (unless the pre-2021 version has itself been repealed or amended by the Commonwealth). A government or practitioner could be caught out if they assume that termination of the 2021 adoption ends the whole scheme.

Third, the reference of power under section 5 is not the same as the adoption. The reference refers matters to the Commonwealth; the adoption gives the Commonwealth Act force. If the reference is terminated, the Commonwealth Act may still apply in Tasmania if it is still adopted under section 4, but the Commonwealth might lose the constitutional authority to amend the Act further without Tasmania’s consent. But the reference can be terminated by proclamation with parliamentary approval. Practitioners should not assume the scheme is permanent.

Fourth, disclosure under section 6A is permissible but not mandatory. Many will read the section and assume registration authorities must disclose adverse events. The word “may” means they have discretion. An individual could argue that if an authority chooses not to disclose, they are not in breach of any duty. But if the authority does disclose, they are protected. This creates a regime where disclosure decisions are unpredictable. A risk-averse authority might choose to disclose everything for fear of being criticised for not disclosing, even though there is no duty. This could lead to over-disclosure, harming individuals’ privacy.

Fifth, good faith is the only safeguard. Section 6B protects only information given in good faith. If an authority discloses information recklessly or maliciously, the individual may have a claim. However, proving bad faith is difficult. The Act does not define good faith, leaving it to the courts. Authorities should have policies to ensure that disclosures are made for proper purposes (e.g., protecting public safety) and not for vendettas or ulterior motives.

Sixth, the override of confidentiality laws is absolute for disclosures under section 6A. It is not limited to “except where it would be contrary to public interest”. This means even if disclosure would endanger the individual or breach health privacy laws, the authority may still do it. There is no balancing test. This is a significant loss of privacy protection.

Seventh, the protection from liability extends to the State (section 6B(2)). This is broader than just the individual officer. If an officer gives information in good faith, the State is protected. This could limit the possibility of suing the State under vicarious liability if the officer acted in good faith. Even if the officer acted in bad faith, the State might still be liable, but the Act does not say; it only relieves the State of liability it “might otherwise have had for another person having done anything as described in subsection (1)”. If the officer acted in bad faith, the action is not “as described in subsection (1)” (which requires good faith). So the State may be liable if the officer acted in bad faith, but the individual must prove that.

Eighth, the temporary exemptions for goods power (section 7) might be broader than readers think. It allows regulations for the purposes of section 15 of the Commonwealth Act. That section allows exemptions from mutual recognition for goods on certain grounds. Companies that import goods into Tasmania from other states might think they are automatically covered by mutual recognition, but the Governor can temporarily exempt certain goods. This could create uncertainty for businesses that rely on a single national market for goods. The exemption power is not self-executing; it requires regulations, but its existence means the market is not completely free.

Ninth, administration is assigned to the Treasurer only until an order under the Administrative Arrangements Act 1990 is made. If that order changes the administering department, practitioners may need to find the new responsible body. The Act does not automatically transfer; it simply defaults to Treasury until an order is made. If no order is made, the Treasurer remains responsible. But a practitioner searching for the correct regulator should check current administrative arrangements.

Tenth, the Act has been proclaimed, but the source does not show the proclamation date. That means the Act is in force, but the date is not given. For practitioners needing to know when mutual recognition commenced in Tasmania, they would need to look up the proclamation in the Tasmanian Government Gazette. The Act itself does not provide that information.

Compliance with the Mutual Recognition (Tasmania) Act 1993 requires different actions depending on the entity involved.

For an individual seeking to practice an occupation in Tasmania under mutual recognition: You are not primarily dealing with this Act; you need to follow the procedures in the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act 1992 as adopted. That means lodging a notice with the relevant Tasmanian registration authority stating that you are registered in another participating jurisdiction and seeking deemed registration. The Tasmanian Act does not impose additional steps. However, you should be aware that if your registration in your home state is subject to conditions or disciplinary proceedings, the registration authority in Tasmania may receive information about that from other jurisdictions under section 6A. That could affect your application or continued practice.

For a Tasmanian registration authority: You need to be aware of your powers and liabilities under sections 6A and 6B. The key step is to develop a policy on when to use the discretion to disclose information about an individual to other jurisdictions. Because the Act overrides confidentiality laws, you have a legal right to disclose, but you must ensure you act in good faith. Good faith likely includes having a reasonable belief that the information is accurate, that the event has actually occurred, and that disclosure is appropriate considering the purpose of the mutual recognition scheme (public safety, integrity of the profession). You should keep records of the reasons for disclosure decisions. If you decide not to disclose, you are not at risk under this Act, but you might face criticism if harm later occurs. The Act does not require you to disclose, so you can err on the side of caution, but you should be consistent.

For a registration authority receiving information: The Act gives you the right to receive information from Tasmania. You do not have duties under this Act, but you should be aware of your own jurisdiction’s requirements for handling that information (e.g., privacy laws). Section 6B protects the person giving information, not the recipient. However, if you use the information inappropriately, you may face liability under your own law. The Tasmanian Act does not address that.

For the Tasmanian Government: If you wish to terminate the adoption or the reference, you must follow the procedure in sections 4A and 5(3), but first you must obtain parliamentary approval under section 6. That requires preparing a draft proclamation and laying it before both Houses. The approval can be obtained either by explicit resolution or by the expiry of five sitting days without a motion to disallow. The government should ensure that the draft is properly prepared and that the Houses are given sufficient time. If the government fails to get approval, the proclamation is invalid.

For the Parliament The Houses must ensure that any motion to disallow a draft proclamation is dealt with within the timeline. If they do not act, the draft is approved automatically after five sitting days. This passive approval mechanism can result in termination without explicit debate. Members should be aware that the default is approval if no one moves disallowance.

For an individual who is the subject of a possible disclosure: There is no statutory right to notice or to be heard. To protect your interests, you could request that the registration authority not disclose information unless required. But the authority has discretion. If the authority discloses and you believe it was not in good faith, you may consider legal action. Before that, you could ask the authority for its reasons and argue against disclosure. However, the odds of success are low because the authority is protected even if it errs, as long as it acted honestly. You should keep evidence of any communications that might show malice or ulterior motives.

For businesses dealing with goods: Ensure you understand whether temporary exemptions are in place. Check the Tasmanian regulations made under section 7. If the Governor has made regulations exempting certain goods from mutual recognition, you must comply with local standards for those goods even if they are from another state. The Commonwealth Act’s general rule is that goods that can be sold in one state can be sold in another, but exceptions exist. The Tasmanian regulations can create those exceptions. A business should monitor the Tasmanian legislation database for such regulations.

For legal practitioners advising clients: Recognize that this Act is the tip of the iceberg. The real substance is in the Commonwealth Act. Also note the interaction with other Tasmanian Acts that govern specific occupations. Advise clients who face disclosure of information that they have limited recourse. Advise registration authorities on the importance of documenting good faith. Advise clients considering mutual recognition to check the actual date of proclamation and the current status of adoptions.