This study originated from a professional interest of the researcher in competency standards and their implementation in the professions. The study was conducted with the aim of informing policy development and implementation in Namibia in this area by drawing lessons from the Australian experience. It set out to identify the factors that influenced the implementation of this policy in Australia, the importance of these factors and the strategies employed by implementors to enhance successful implementation. The study is grounded in policy implementation theory. Twenty professions have been involved in developing and implementing competency standards in Australia under the guidance and with the support of a national government organisation called the National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition (NOOSR). The main objectives of the Australian government in implementing this policy were the improvement of migrant skills recognition and the achievement of recognition for professional qualifications across state and territory borders. Time and budgetary constraints would not allow the involvement of all the professional groups in this study, so four groups were selected based on their size and progress made in developing and implementing the standards. The groups ranged from a very large professional group (more than 250 000 members) to a very small professional group (approximately 3 500 members). Eleven respondents from NOOSR and the professional groups participated in the study. Data was gathered by structured interview, a rating schedule and document analysis. The study found that there were seventeen factors that influenced this process as perceived by the respondents. These factors were classified into five categories: technical, political, economic, administrative and political, and then placed on a matrix with the levels at which they exerted their greatest pressure: external, internal to the professional body, and on the steering group. This classification of factors gave indications of the types of strategies and the level of intervention which may address implementation problems best. The study compiled a list of the factors in order of importance as rated by the respondents. This ranking showed that leadership was the most important factor, followed by experience and expertise of the steering group and the need for and appropriateness of the standards for the professions. The study also found that the Australian government employed inducement, capacity building and facilitation strategies to enhance the successful vii implementation of the standards, while the professional bodies employed mainly staff development and training as strategies. The study concluded that Namibian policy makers and implementors can draw the following lessons from the Australian experience: 1. there is a need for a balance between pressure and support from government; 2. there is a role for a national implementation plan; 3. the main attraction of national competency standards is still the many uses it can be put to and the many purposes it serves for different organisations; 4. assessment strategies need to be considered from the beginning; 5. the methodology of using a representative steering group to lead standards development is one of the best features of the Australian approach; 6. Over time, the original objectives of the policy became low priority for NOOSR and the government; 7. the classification matrix can be used as a planning tool; and 8. the ranking of the factors indicates the importance of organisational, technical and economic factors.

La liberté de circulation et la liberté d’établissement sont reconnues comme fondamentales et intrinsèquement liées au principe de dignité humaine. Pourtant, au nom de la souveraineté nationale, les États imposent des limites à la mobilité humaine. La mobilité de la main-d’œuvre est nécessaire au fonctionnement de l’économie et peut répondre en partie aux enjeux de pénurie de travailleurs. Notre thèse propose une recherche en droit positif visant à circonscrire la portée du droit à la mobilité en droit canadien. De fait, l’article 6 (2) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés reconnaît aux citoyens et résidents permanents au Canada la liberté de circulation et le droit de gagner leur vie. Toutefois, l’alinéa 6 (3) a) de la Charte contient une restriction à ces droits. Les provinces demeurent autorisées à légiférer pour limiter la mobilité, tant qu’elles n’imposent pas de discrimination basée sur la province de résidence. Nous soutenons que dans l’état actuel de la jurisprudence canadienne, le droit à la mobilité n’est pas considéré comme une liberté fondamentale. Pour leur part, les accords de commerce entre les membres de la confédération, sur le plan national, et les accords bilatéraux, régionaux et multilatéraux entre le Canada et ses partenaires contiennent des dispositions encadrant la mobilité de la main-d’œuvre. Lors des négociations constitutionnelles qui ont précédé et suivi le rapatriement de la constitution canadienne en 1982, le développement de l’union économique au pays et l’inclusion du droit à la mobilité ont été au cœur des débats. Or l’analyse des décisions de la Cour suprême du Canada portant sur l’article 6 (2) démontre pourtant que c’est uniquement la non-discrimination sur la base de la province de résidence qui est garantie par la Charte. Les instruments internationaux relatifs aux droits de la personne établissent le droit à la mobilité comme un droit fondamental, mais la recension des différents accords de libre-échange permet de conclure que la mobilité de la main-d’œuvre est favorisée essentiellement pour répondre aux besoins économiques. Le droit à la mobilité ne devrait pas uniquement répondre aux besoins des aléas économiques. Dans cette perspective, la reconnaissance des compétences et des qualifications s’avère impérative pour que le droit à la mobilité soit réellement effectif. / The rights to move, the right to take up residence, and the right to gain a livelihood are recognized as fundamental and are intrinsically linked to the principle of human dignity. Yet, in the name of national sovereignty, states impose limits on human mobility. Labor mobility is a pillar of world economy and can address many aspects of workforce shortages. Our research examines current constraints to, and the scope of, the right to mobility under Canadian law. Indeed, section 6 (2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes the right to move and the right to gain a livelihood for citizens and permanent residents of Canada. However, section 6 (3) a) of the Charter contains a limitation on these rights. Provinces remain authorized to limit mobility, as long as they do not discriminate on the basis of province of residence. We argue that, as Canadian jurisprudence currently stands, mobility rights are not considered a fundamental freedom. On the other hand, trade agreements between members of confederation, at the national level, and bilateral, regional, and multilateral agreements between Canada and its international partners, contain provisions regulating labor mobility. During the constitutional negotiations that preceded and followed the repatriation of the Constitution Act, 1982, the development of the economic union in Canada and the inclusion of mobility rights were at the heart of the debate. However, an analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions on section 6(2) shows that the Canadian Charter guarantees non-discrimination on the basis of province of residence. International human rights instruments establish the mobility rights as a fundamental right, but a review of various free trade agreements suggests that labor mobility is promoted primarily to meet economic needs. Mobility rights should not uniquely answer economic requirements. Against this background, the recognition of skills and qualifications is imperative to ensure that mobility rights are effective.