Occupational Licensing National Law (South Australia) Repeal Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 March 2016.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:34): I rise on behalf of Liberal members to support the second reading of the Occupational Licensing National Law (South Australia) Repeal Bill. Those members who have been here for a number of years might recall that this bill has had a chequered history. In 2008, COAG agreed to develop a national trade licensing system for multiple occupational trades. Victoria was given the job as the lead legislator, and those of us who were in the South Australian parliament in 2011 may well recall that we passed the appropriate legislation. The model that was being envisaged was that the states would pass the appropriate legislation in their respective states to ensure that the national agreement was implemented.

At the time of the legislation in 2011, which the government introduced, the Liberal Party supported the legislation. We were advised at that time that the first wave of occupations that would be licensed included air-conditioning and refrigeration mechanics, plumbers and gasfitters, electricians and property agents. We were told that the second wave of occupations was to include land transport, maritime, building, conveyancers and valuers.

With the change of federal government and the change of government in some state jurisdictions, in December 2013 COAG changed its mind. We were told through the communiqué that there was a majority vote, which I guess indicates that there were at least a small number of jurisdictions that did not agree with the change of mind. In December 2013, COAG decided to abandon the whole national occupational licensing scheme.

The COAG communiqué—we obviously were not present at that particular meeting—noted that most jurisdictions had identified a number of concerns with the proposed model and potential costs. One might suggest that, if jurisdictions were identifying that at that stage, why on earth had those concerns not been identified prior to 2011, between the period of 2008 and 2011 when this proposed national scheme was agreed to?

In 2013, the states agreed to work together via the Council for the Australian Federation (CAF) to develop alternative options for minimising licensing impediments to improve mobility between the states. We were advised that, while South Australia had implemented the nationally agreed legislation, some other jurisdictions had not.

We are told that there had been strong opposition to the proposed model—the 2011 model, that is—from various real estate industry bodies and the National Electrical and Contractors Association, known as NECA. I can attest to the strength of feeling of some real estate industry bodies. We sought comment from the local Real Estate Institute in South Australia, and a representative on the institute's behalf said:

We see this bill as just unwinding a piece of legislation that we were opposed to because it diminished educational standards for real estate agents to that equivalent of out of the Weeties packet. As such, delighted to see the official end to the nonsense.

That was a relatively informal colloquial expression of the strongly held view of the local Real Estate Institute, from someone acting on their behalf.

As we understand it, the various real estate bodies throughout the jurisdictions have varying levels of entry requirements and restrictions in terms of operating in their states, which was part of the reason for having a nationally agreed model. Whatever the national agreement was, it fell apart once it went to the various state jurisdictions.

I will refer to some response I have had from the minister in relation to this but, before I do, the National Electrical and Contractors Association (NECA) opposed the original model as 'life threatening' and 'another pink batts debacle waiting to happen'. That was NECA talking about it. I should have quoted the Real Estate Institute in New South Wales earlier, which criticised the model as 'leading to a reduction in existing standards, as the lower standard applying in some states would be used for the national model.'

Minister Rau, as the minister responsible, was asked, on behalf of the Liberal Party in the House of Assembly, if he could throw any light on some detail of why the national scheme was being dissolved. For the benefit of members, I will place on the Hansard his formal response to me, dated 23 February 2016. It states:

The scheme has never become operational. It is being dissolved because there was intractable disagreement between the states and territories on the details of the scheme and concern about the cost of the scheme compared with retaining the existing state-based approach to occupational licensing.

States and territories had agreed with the original proposal to move to national licensing of various occupations with the objective of increasing labour mobility and decreasing the cost to business of operating across borders. This led to the enactment of the Occupational Licensing National Law by states and territories and the establishment of the National Occupational Licensing Authority.

I interpose that various national bodies that have already been established as a result of the repeal of this legislation are going to have to be disestablished, and funds which have been paid by states into funding these national bodies will have to be distributed under a scheme of arrangement which has been agreed to between the various states. I continue with the letter from minister Rau to me, dated 23 February:

The next stage of the scheme required agreement on a uniform national set of eligibility criteria and competency standards for the various occupational licenses to be prescribed in regulations under the occupational licensing national law acts. This involved input from existing state and territory licensing authorities and representatives of various occupations.

Some states and territories were strongly opposed to any reduction of their eligibility criteria and qualification competency requirements, while other states and territories were opposed to any increase in the requirements on the basis that this unnecessarily increases barriers to entry to the occupations and hence end-cost to consumers.

The industry bodies lobbied hard against any reduction in qualifications and competency standards. This led to concerns that the costs of the national scheme would outweigh the benefits of it.

I think the quotes I gave earlier from the Real Estate Institute of South Australia, the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales and the National Electrical Contractors Association are a fair indication of the accuracy of the statement minister Rau has conveyed to the opposition in that letter.

Further detail of the letter I will not put on the public record, but it provides detail of how the money and assets are going to be distributed amongst the various jurisdictions and it is, in my judgement, acceptable and certainly, from our viewpoint, it does not appear to raise any significant issues that need to be pursued during the debate on the bill.

The only point I would make is that a lot of this was being pursued. The Hon. Mr Darley was here and an active part of the debate, the work health safety debate, where again I suspect at some stage in the future we are likely to see some of the problems that have been warned about in relation to that legislation that need to be pursued, with tidying up legislation in this state and in other states as well. In this particular example, it is not a question of just tidying up; it is that the majority of COAG has now decided that this is unworkable and voted to disestablish the whole bang lot.

With those statements, I indicate Liberal Party support of the second reading. The only question at this stage I have for the minister (and I understand that we are not concluding the debate today) when he closes the second reading debate is: can he ascertain from the minister responsible—and I am not sure whether it was minister Rau at the time or another minister—what was the South Australian minister and government's position at the December 2013 COAG meeting?

That is, the communiqué indicates that it was a majority vote to abandon the national occupational licensing scheme. What was the position the South Australian government put at December 2013? Was it part of the majority voting to abandon it or were they part of the minority that was voting to continue the scheme? With that, I indicate the Liberal Party's support for the second reading.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.