Mutual Recognition (South Australia) (Further Adoption) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 October 2021.)

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (12:26): I rise to make a contribution on behalf of the government—sorry, my mind gets ahead of me, sir. I think it is late March already!

I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition regarding the government's Mutual Recognition (South Australia) (Further Adoption) Amendment Bill. Members may be aware that this continues efforts which stem all the way back—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt, member for Lee. You are the lead speaker?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes—but, unlike custom, brief lead speaker, sir. Members may be aware that—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, let's wait and see. Don't sell yourself short, member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No. Thank you for your guidance, sir. Members may be aware that these efforts stretch back more than two decades and find their root in efforts from former federal governments to ensure that, as part of competition policy reforms, states had harmonised arrangements governing the recognition of licensing, regulation and so on of certain professions and workers within certain industries.

It has been a contentious reform. As you might imagine, sir, there are different regimes for licensing and regulation of particular workers within industries that have developed over many years across states and territories. Basically, the difficulty with this reform was: how could we make sure that if we had a consistent scheme we were choosing a level of standard that was not only consistent but reflected the wishes of all of the states?

States that had more onerous restrictions or requirements on particular sets of workers did not want to see those standards diminished in order just to be sure that they had the same standard as another state or territory. That has taken many, many years to try to settle. One, for example, which has not yet been settled—and I am glad that the government is, pardon the pun, recognising this—is the profession of teachers. I understand from debate in the other place that the government proposes to exempt the teaching profession from the terms of this bill to recognise the particular requirements and requisites that we have here in South Australia for that profession.

But there are many others, dozens in fact of other professions, which will be captured by the terms of this bill including, for example, in the current context, while we are in the middle of a housing boom, many of the building trades, the idea being that these arrangements under this bill would encourage and enhance labour force mobility between the states and territories so that if there were worker shortages in one jurisdiction, then workers from another would be able to come in relatively seamlessly and work in that economy.

There is one area, though, that I did want to draw attention to and that is real estate agents. In the albeit limited consultation I was able to undertake on this bill, the one standout profession that remains uncomfortable with this bill is the real estate industry. They are very concerned at the prospect of having real estate agents come in from interstate and work in our real estate industry despite not having the same levels of experience in our environment with our particular real estate industry laws that existing practitioners have here in South Australia.

That is a potential problem, and it is a potential problem in the current context, where most people would recognise that we have a very hot real estate market where there is a very swift turnover of properties. People are listing properties, they are selling very swiftly and they are also selling for record prices.

You can imagine the attraction for some real estate practitioners from other states who might think that they now have an opportunity to come and practise here in South Australia to take advantage of those conditions despite the fact that they might not be fully conversant with our legal frameworks and our requirements, both on their making sure that they are providing a high level of service to their clients and in terms of our particular sale by treaty laws or auction laws, etc. They are particular to South Australia and do require some familiarity, so that is a concern they have.

I already mentioned that I think it is good that the government is excising teachers for at least a five-year period from this regime. I do wonder whether there are any intentions to recognise other professions where there are still some particularities and concerns about whether these arrangements should apply to them, but that is perhaps something we can briefly explore during the committee stage. I will leave my remarks there.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (12:31): I appreciate the shadow treasurer's contribution on this debate. There is no need for me to go back over the details of this topic; a lot of them are immediately apparent, and of course there will be an evolution of this mutual recognition should this bill pass.

I am strongly in support of this principle; I suspect more so than most MPs. There are things that we do differently in states and in different types of jurisdictions as well—and that not being only states and territories—where we have an additional burden that need not be there. I commend the bill to the house. I am not sure if the opposition wants to go into committee, but I get the impression that it does want to go into committee. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps, if the minister could advise the house with whom the government consulted in the preparation of this bill?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The commonwealth led most of the consultation. I am advised that pretty well all industry bodies that were known as potentially being affected by this were consulted with. I am told that a list could be procured from the commonwealth and shared if that is what the state opposition would like.

I am told that the state consultation was largely with regulators. So, in my mind, breaking that down: commonwealth on the principle and with industry, state more about the potential implementation should it pass.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate his advice. Can I then ask which of the regulators the state government was engaged with in the preparation of this bill. Also, were any representations made to the government from local industry representatives or employer groups, etc.?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised that there were no representations made to the government from any local state-based industry organisations; there were from national industry representative bodies. I believe it would be the case that that was the same submission that would have gone to the commonwealth in that case.

With regard to local agencies, essentially the Commissioner for Consumer and Business Services, Health, EPA, SafeWork SA, Teachers Registration Board and the architects board were the primary ones the state engaged with.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Of the national representative bodies that contacted the state government about this, could the minister advise which of those raised concerns and what those concerns were?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised that the electrical trades were the main ones that expressed some concerns. They were supportive in principle of the direction. They were concerned about potential differences in training regimes and training outcomes across jurisdictions, but I am advised that those concerns were allayed during the discussions with the state.

Mr PICTON: That is an important point to get some more clarification on. To the minister: what are those concerns in terms of the training issues that have been raised? Are there particular issues where there are training requirements in other states that would not meet the criteria that are in place in South Australia and therefore may allow for accredited people to be in place that we would not allow Are there any specific occupations or areas of accreditation where those concerns have been specifically raised?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised that, whilst some concerns were raised about potential different levels of training between states, the deeper issue was about some qualifications in some states allowing broader work to be done, and in some other states, jurisdictions, a narrower range of work to be done.

If they were essentially homogenised, somebody who might have only been trained and qualified in a narrower range could then automatically, potentially, become qualified to operate on a broader range, and the way this is being implemented prevents that from happening. A person would not be able to be qualified and certified to do the work unless it could be proven that they had actually got the appropriate training and experience.

Mr PICTON: I am most familiar in terms of health. It sounds like what would be referred to in health as the scope of practice of a health practitioner in terms of what they are allowed to do based on their training.

You are saying that concerns have been raised that—for the lack of a better phrase—the scope of practice of somebody who has had training would be able to be broader because of the recognition of other states where they have different arrangements, but this is now preventing that occurring. How is this preventing that from now occurring?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I suppose I should say clearly that the question was about what concerns were raised. The question was not about what concerns still remain. I am advised that these concerns no longer remain. I think really the best answer I can give to the member is the one I gave before. It will not be possible for somebody to practise a trade—and we are talking at the moment about the electrical trade—without actually being trained, experienced and qualified in that way.

Mr PICTON: I asked in my first question whether there are any specific areas, or whether you have a list of those areas of trades or professions, where this is a particular issue. If the minister can provide that information I would appreciate it.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Again, it is important for me to stress that these are concerns that were raised not necessarily the concerns that still remain. We have talked about electrical trades. Radiation was another area I am advised was raised, and that is being addressed to be sure that no practitioners—for the choice of a word—would be able to ply their trade without being properly trained, properly experienced and properly certified.

I should add, too, that this legislation is not about mutual recognition of every trade, every work practice, every industry in every jurisdiction being exactly the same. It is about putting it in place where it is sensible to do it, where it is practical to do it and where it is safe to do it. Where a concern is raised and that concern has not been addressed satisfactorily, then the mutual recognition does not automatically flow. We only implement the mutual recognition when it is appropriate to do so.

Mr ODENWALDER: My question relates to the same clause. I note that the bill refers specifically to security industry trainers as one of the professions listed that will be affected by this legislation that will allow movement across borders of people properly qualified in security industry training, presumably. I wonder if there are any other security related professions that are not listed there that will be encompassed by this, such as security guards.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: In addition to security industry trainer, security agent and investigation agent fall in that category.

Mr ODENWALDER: Security industry trainers, investigation agents, and what was the other one?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The additional two were security agent and investigation agent.

Mr ODENWALDER: All those professions—but particularly trainers, perhaps—are involved in the provision of security to South Australians. I wonder whether South Australia Police and the Police Association were consulted about the inclusion of these people.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, both.

Mr ODENWALDER: Both?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Sorry, I misheard. SAPOL was, PASA was not.

Mr ODENWALDER: By way of clarification, I wonder whether South Australia Police offered any objection or changes to the legislation, if they raised any concerns, and if you could table those concerns, if they exist.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There were some concerns or questions raised. I am advised that CBS run the accreditation on behalf of SAPOL and that, through the course of those constructive discussions, SAPOL ended up being comfortable with the process.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I was given a list of the occupations. I am not sure whether it relates to the existing occupations that are already covered by mutual recognition arrangements or whether they are the ones which are proposed to be covered on the adoption of this bill into legislation. I will whip through them as quickly as I can. While I am doing so, perhaps the minister can clarify which are the occupations the government intends to include on the passage of this bill? With regard to the specific wording of the clause, are they all due to come into commencement on the same date or is it staggered?

What I have is: accredited assessor for high-risk work, asbestos removalist, asbestos assessor, gasfitting work, dangerous goods driver, blasters, pyrotechnicians, employment agents, operate radiation apparatus, use or handle radioactive substances, architects, building work contractor, building work supervisor, plumbing contractor, gasfitting contractor, electrical contractor, plumbing worker, gasfitting worker, electrical worker, conveyancer, land agent, land sales representative, property manager, auctioneer, trainee, second-hand vehicle dealer, investigation agent, security industry trainer, labour hire service provider, collector, bookmaker agent, pest management technicians (should they not get rid of them rather than just shepherd them?), registered architects, building certifiers, well driller's licence, native vegetation accredited consultants, cadastral surveyors, third-party service providers, site contamination auditor, regulatory food safety auditor, regulatory auditors and teachers. Are they the current or the proposed?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised that all occupations listed—and I am told that the list that you have just read out is the list—are covered by this updated mutual recognition legislation and that they all come in on the same commencement date, but then the exemption provisions apply to a subset of all those occupations. That exemption list could be provided to the opposition, but I do not think we have it here.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I may be able to assist. I have, you will be pleased to hear, a much shorter list of those occupations that I understand it is the intention of the government to exempt or delay for a period of time: teaching, which I mentioned in my second reading contribution; well drillers; transport-related occupations, including tow truck operators, marine pilots and passenger transport accreditation; food safety auditors; and EPA contamination auditors. My question is: are they the ones that the government is currently considering exempting or delaying, or are there any further, or have I got the list wrong?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: That list is correct, I am advised.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Of that five or so list of exemptions, teachers, as I understand it, are to be delayed by five years or reconsidered in five years, whatever the right way of expressing that is, but what about those other occupations? Are they proposed to be brought in after a certain period of time or just exempted on an ongoing basis?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised that there is a range. Environmental and public safety type categories are expected to be quite long, longer potentially than five years, as you mentioned for the teachers. But architects and some other trades like that are really looking at some very short-term exemptions, just to get some of the nuts and bolts sorted out.

Mr ODENWALDER: I have just a quick question. I am sorry; I was not paying full attention to the member for Lee's listing off of the occupations, but does it include driver trainers or assessors on the initial list, on the long list of occupations?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised that the transport industry will be seeking a long-term exemption for driver trainers.

Mr ODENWALDER: That prompts the question: why?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised the reason is that driver training industry is undergoing significant change as we speak and not exactly the same change in every state. The member would be aware of a bill in this house on exactly that topic. From a practical perspective, it is not expected that can all be ironed out and then a mutual recognition framework be developed in the short or medium term.

Mr PICTON: The minister mentioned before in one of his answers a number of professions that will be delayed for some time, including teaching, and I understand it was for five years that teaching was to be delayed. What happens between now and five years' time? Is there a process that the government is going through in terms of consultation and consideration before the end of that five years, or is this just a waiting period until that five years is up?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There is not really an answer to that question, member for Kaurna. All jurisdictions, industry, are working together. They are working collaboratively, trying to develop a framework that would be appropriate, but it is not actually known how long that will take and it is certainly not expected to be in the short term.

Clause passed.

Clauses 3 and 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Under clause 5, 4A makes sense, but it is 4B I want to ask about. Section 4B(1) requires certain details of an individual that may be required to be furnished to establish their identity or their bona fides. Can I ask whether this is what is required in order to establish somebody's identity and capacity to work in an industry, or will there be additional requirements that are occupation specific?

For example, we have their basic identity—where do you live and where are you working or where do you usually work, etc.,—but will a worker need to demonstrate, for example, that they hold a particular trade licence as a plumber, for example, and how does that apply across different occupations by way of example?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised that different trades, different industries, might be dealt with slightly differently. Some industries will require that, when a person who is qualified in one jurisdiction moves to another and wants to work in the second, that person needs to contact the regulator in the jurisdiction that person wants to go into to seek that regulator's assessment of that person's bona fides and then give them the permission to work.

There will be other circumstances where that is not required and a person might seek to move from one jurisdiction to another and might not seek the regulator's approval. That is as it exists exactly at the moment, but I am told that a significant number of industries are going to seek to have included in the implementation of this the obligation that the relocating person seeks the authorisation from the new jurisdiction.

I misunderstood this bit—it is not seeking a transfer of the qualifications; it is purely advice to the regulator, making sure that the regulator knows that person is moving from one state to another and wants to do work in the second. We can also imagine situations where companies would be working across state borders on a regular basis anyway.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.