Bills

Occupational Licensing National Law (South Australia) Repeal Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 February 2016.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:37): Industries relevant to this bill welcomed the initiative of the new prime minister, Tony Abbott, and his commitment to turn around this situation and at the COAG meeting on 13 December 2013, with the support of COAG, resolved to dismantle this national scheme and get rid of this ridiculous idea that had emanated from the Rudd administration.

Indeed, NECA, the national body involved in the training for trades and licensing, had this to say on 5 September 2014:

In what can only be described as one of the more sensible decisions by government, COAG has refused to sign-off the national electrical licensing scheme proposal. NECA has described the proposed scheme as 'inferior' and 'potentially life threatening…another pink batts debacle waiting to happen'.

It goes on to say:

The proposal was not supported by industry and would have undermined electrical safety across Australia. The industry, with NECA at the forefront had repeatedly put forward a proposal for a system that was aimed at achieving a quality national licensing scheme. The release of the proposed system by the Federal bureaucracy would have only served to lower existing standards and increase the likelihood of further safety concerns. The change in the definitions of what was to be installation work would have allowed unlicensed and untrained people to do electrical work.

There are many other comments in relation to that industry. Similarly, when the local industries were consulted about the passage of this bill, the Real Estate Institute of South Australia, for example—which had, for a long time, proposed that the national scheme was not going to be of benefit to its members and, in particular, the standard of training and licensing that would be expected—welcomed the proposed repealing of this national scheme.

It certainly made comment. Similarly, its concerns were along the lines that, in opposing the initial model at a national level, it had considered that there would be diminished educational standards for real estate agents. What is important to remember here is that again we get back to this lowest common denominator scenario where, in attempting to achieve a national model, there are a lot of back and forth negotiations as to who has got the best model.

One would like to think that when you are working out a national model you pick the best from all the states and have a scheme that ultimately is superior. Sadly that is not always the case, and I have given examples in a contribution to date. However, the South Australian representative body considered that if we had gone down this path its real estate agents would have ended up with a standard in respect of their licensing equivalent to something out of a Wheaties packet.

So there was wholesale rejoicing amongst industry groups who were responsible for ensuring that the licensing and training and standards of the occupations that were the subject of this were going to be at a high standard. They insisted that they be at a high standard. They considered that this model had thrown up a standard for a number of industries which was inferior and in some cases potentially dangerous. With those few words, I do seek to go into committee in respect of this bill, and I have a few questions of the minister.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (15:41): This is one of those happy occasions where we all appear to be in agreement, and that is good. I for one have always been sceptical about the merit of this.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I may well have done, but I did so with considerable scepticism. I was very happy to meet with the real estate industry over a period of time and listen to its requests and to appropriately slow down progress so as to not threaten its people with unsatisfactory training arrangements. I am very pleased that it appears that this will go through, and I thank all who have contributed.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

The CHAIR: There are only nine clauses, so do you want to speak for 15 minutes before we pass it all?

Ms CHAPMAN: Look, I am happy to raise it. It is largely in relation to the costs, contribution and dismantling.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Ms CHAPMAN: As I indicated in the second reading, the Attorney has provided a letter to the Hon. Rob Lucas outlining the background as to why the national scheme was being dissolved, and further questions were put in respect of the detail as to how much money and assets were being distributed. The response was four paragraphs and regrettably does not detail any of the particulars sought other than in general terms to say that there is an agreement to dismantle the fund that currently exists and that it was to be distributed on an equal per capita share basis. We know from the Hansard contribution of the Hon. Gail Gago in another place that, in the years 2009-10 and 2010-11, contributions of $140,000 and $370,000 respectively were put into the national fund from South Australia. My question is: how much money has been put in since?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that South Australia made total contributions to the fund of $420,000, of which we expect to be refunded approximately $140,000 after deducting our share of the disestablishment costs.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is it correct, then, that the $140,000 and $370,000 were just towards establishment costs and that they are separate from the $420,000 that you have just referred to?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I'm afraid the only information that I have is what I have just shared with the house. There is a further comment here that a recent reconciliation of liabilities indicate that South Australia's share of the disestablishment cost would be in the order of $70,000 and then, as I said before, we have apparently made total contributions of $420,000. We expect a refund of about $140,000 including the fact, I assume, that we are paying about $70,000 towards disestablishment.

Ms CHAPMAN: Do I assume from that then that we are expecting a net of $70,000 back?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are expecting $140,000 back.

Ms CHAPMAN: What has happened to the income from each of the industries in the meantime; namely, have they continued to simply be paid into the estate bodies?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that it never actually got started, so whatever was going on before had continued to go on and now will continue to go on.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of other occupations, which were proposed to be in a second tranche of national regulation or licensing, is that now going to be abandoned?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes; happily the whole thing is being abandoned.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are there any other national schemes that are either operating now or proposed in respect of the licensing or registration of professions that are to be disbanded or not progressed now?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The only thing I can say is that, insofar as anything was contemplated to come within this framework, this framework is being demolished and nothing is going to happen in that space. Whether there are other professional associations which, independent of this framework, are negotiating some arrangements I cannot say, but what I can say is that, whatever work this was going to be doing, it will not be doing, and so I guess we are left in a situation where it is as if this had never even begun.

Ms CHAPMAN: With the agreement at COAG to pursue other alternative efficiency measures, what else has the government done or is it doing to improve the mobility arrangements, for example, which is one of the objectives that was being sought? For example, is it proposed that there is some agreement to have a uniform standard in relation to licensing which each of the states will pursue in their own jurisdiction? There was an agreement to do something, and I am really asking: has the government done anything yet or is it proposing to do something?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that there have been talks about mutual recognition, and I do not believe they have actually progressed very far. To the extent that they were there, they were there against the backdrop of this project being undertaken, and this is now gone.

I personally am of the view that there is probably some scope for some form of mutual recognition which should not be too difficult. That said, even mutual recognition schemes would ultimately confront the same problem, which is that there are differences from one jurisdiction to another. I am happy to take that up through the forum for ministers for Consumer Affairs—I think there is one coming up in March or April.

To give one example—and this may not be an accurate example, but it gives you an idea of what I am trying to say—in South Australia, if you hold a ticket as an electrician, that might also mean that, as part and parcel of becoming an electrician, you have done training in certain things that enabled you to install water heaters or solar panels or something of that nature. However, in another state, they may not be training modules for the acquisition of a roughly equivalent licence.

There will always be these sort of marginal differences between the curricula, for a start; not to mention the standards or the degree of training that is attached to these matters. It is something I think we should look at, but in the end this whole process has exposed what a complex problem that is.

Ms CHAPMAN: Between houses, would the minister consider making available to the Hon. Rob Lucas particulars of any proposed changes to the current state scheme that are consistent with the commitment made at COAG 2013 that each of the states would work via the Council for the Australian Federation (CAF) on the basis that it was to 'develop alternate options for minimising licensing impediments to improving labour mobility'? Mutual recognition of standards and those types of things, as you have pointed out, may or may not be on the drawing board. We would just like to know in writing between the houses if they are on their way and, if so, what they are.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will undertake to do my best to supply as much information on that as I possibly can.

Clauses 5 to 9 passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (15:52): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.