HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-02-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING NATIONAL LAW (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 November 2010.)

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:10): I indicate opposition support for the bill and also that I am the lead speaker. I will raise a couple of points in supporting the bill. This legislation is based on the lead legislation that was introduced in the Victorian parliament. It was due for debate in June last year but was not debated until September. Of course, that put a little bit of pressure on the other jurisdictions to meet the time line that was anticipated by COAG for passing legislation.

I note that the minister in the other place (Hon. Gail Gago) expressed some sense of urgency when she introduced the bill in November last year when she said, during her second reading speech, that there could be some risks to the reward payments for South Australia if South Australia did not meet the key reforms and milestones (including incorporating these applications in an act) by December 2010), so I will be interested to explore that a little bit in the committee process.

I also would like to take a moment to reflect on my own experiences when I had my own business. I was doing business from South Australia mainly into New South Wales. I had a shop in Sydney to deal with my clientele there. Generally, because we were dealing person to person (the end user, if you like) and we were acting as a retail outlet for the products we were producing and we were dealing with mainly residential customers, we did not really experience a lot of the difficulties that many other businesses experienced in trading across borders until we won the contract to fit out the Lowy Institute in Bligh Street in Sydney. We had several hundred thousand dollars' worth of furniture that we wanted to install and the Lowy Institute wanted to have that furniture delivered in a timely manner, as you could imagine, so we made some inquiries about getting into the building a couple of days before it was signed off as completed as a building site.

However, we found that we needed to send the staff, whom we were sending over from Adelaide to Sydney, two days beforehand so that they could sit through an induction course on workplace safety as a WorkCover requirement and present the green ticket (I think it was) that they had to hold at the time. Of course, that requirement was not necessary here.

In the end, after a couple of discussions with the managers of the project and a few others, we worked out that, if we waited until the sign-off of the building, we could in actual fact just move in the day after that and start delivering and installing the furniture, which is what we decided to do because there was then no requirement for the WorkCover induction. This is an example of how bureaucracy does need to change and how it is important that we have some sort of consistency between the states.

An issue was raised by the Real Estate Institute of Australia that is peculiar to South Australia, and I think it is important to raise it. Obviously the institute supports national licensing in the wider sense and agrees that individuals should have the opportunity to work across borders more easily. However, there are some key areas that must be addressed concerning the implications of national licensing.

The institute would argue that, in South Australia, real estate agents are more highly trained because they also prepare documentation on behalf of clients in the form of sales and agency agreements, contracts and Form 1s, etc. In the other states, such as Victoria and New South Wales, solicitors undertake these roles, so obviously they see it as being a more open and fair system. I think we have a similar system in South Australia where you can go to see a conveyancer. In some other states—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PISONI: The member for Croydon, interjecting from outside of his seat, is showing extreme ignorance today in questioning me on my ribbon and my commitment to supporting women with ovarian cancer. I am sorry that he is displaying such ignorance and interrupting my speech on this very important matter.

In relation to the point that the Real Estate Institute raised, I was referring to the example of the Form 1 being required and also the fact that, in South Australia, you can employ a conveyancer for transfer of property at the time of sale and, consequently, it is a much cheaper thing to do in South Australia than it is in some other states where that is an exclusive right of the legal profession.

We do not want to see an increase in costs for business in South Australia because of a national system in areas where our system is open to a bit more competition but still provides safeguards and protections for consumers, and ensures that people can confidently hire somebody knowing that they are qualified and know what they are doing. I just wanted to point out that area in supporting this bill, and there are a couple of general questions that I would like to ask at the beginning of the committee stage.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:19): I, too, rise to support the Occupational Licensing National Law (South Australia) Bill 2010, because it certainly impacts on my electorate, which, on its eastern boundary, comes up against Victoria. A vast range of issues are involved over many trades and businesses in terms of whether someone is licensed in South Australia or Victoria—and I mention the relationship of Lameroo and Pinnaroo to towns on the Victorian side, such as Murrayville, Panitya, Ouyen, Walpeup and, even, Underbool.

It is quite sensible that we should be moving forward with some decent national legislation because across industry sectors and across trades everything changes for people going into another jurisdiction just because they have driven over a state boundary. They are not licensed and they cannot do the work unless, perhaps, they do some extra training for essentially the same work; and, so long as it is under proper guidelines and properly managed in the respective parliaments, I think that it is a very good move.

I will give some background on the Inter-Governmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations and the National Partnership Agreement to deliver a seamless national economy (and these were both signed off in December 2008). The Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) for a national licensing system for specified occupations was established and signed by COAG in April 2009.

It is this IGA that forms the basis for the Occupational Licensing National Law (South Australia) Bill 2010. The National Partnership Agreement to deliver a seamless national economy summarises the intention of the bill. It states:

...reducing the costs of regulation and enhancing the productivity and workforce mobility in areas of shared commonwealth, state and territory responsibility.

The bill refers occupational licensing to a new national system in two waves. The first wave will come into operation in July 2012 and will include air conditioning and refrigeration mechanics, plumbers and gas fitters, electricians and property agents (other than conveyancers and valuers). The second wave will come into effect in July 2013 and will include land transport (passenger vehicle and dangerous goods only), maritime building and, then, conveyancers and valuers.

It is noted that Victoria is the lead jurisdiction, and it is the host state for the commonwealth law having passed the template legislation in September. This enables the establishment of a national occupational licensing system through the National Occupational Licensing Authority from 1 January 2010. All other state and territory jurisdictions have agreed to pass harmonising legislation. Minister Gago noted in her second reading explanation that:

The national law has been designed to provide the governance and high-level framework for the national scheme. The operational aspects of the scheme and industry-specific licensing rules and procedures are to be covered in regulations, which are currently being developed. This will enable informed and detailed analysis on the risks, needs and safety requirements for both licensees and consumers, before each occupational area becomes operational under the national law. Occupation-specific legislation will still exist in South Australia to regulate areas that fall outside of the national scheme, for example, conduct matters.

The Office for Consumer and Business Affairs (OCBA) will still have operational responsibilities relating to occupational licensees. OCBA will be responsible for issuing licences and licensee disciplinary decisions. Funding for this will come from general budgetary funding of the agency, soon to be merged with the Office for the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner.

I am certainly very supportive, as I indicated earlier, of this bill and how it will come into play. I note that, under the governance structure of the national occupational licensing system, from the bottom up there will be the delegation of the enforcement and administration of the system to existing jurisdictional regulators, including:

issuing and renewal of licences;

monitoring and enforcement; and

disciplinary proceedings.

Above that will be the trades; being electrical, plumbing and gas fitting, property agents, refrigeration and air conditioning. These will be advised by the occupational licensing advisory committees, and that flows through to the National Occupational Licensing Authority, governed by a board, which is responsible for developing licence policy on licence categories, scopes of work, and eligibility criteria, including training requirements. It will also be responsible for assessing future occupations for inclusion into the scheme. I am advised that right at the top, above this, is the Ministerial Council for Federal Financial Relations, which is responsible for approving changes to the national law, making the regulations, and appointing board members.

We support the bill, but I note that there will be some questions asked in committee. I think it will be a great step forward in common sense for a lot of trades and businesses, especially in my electorate, where at this stage people need to have dual licensing arrangements and work under dual systems. It becomes a bureaucratic headache, especially for the good people of the Mallee whom I represent, very practical and sensible people who would rather attend to their trades than spend their time buried in paperwork when it is, essentially, the same job. I commend the bill to the house. It will be a great move forward.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Treasurer, Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education) (12:26): I thank honourable members for their support. This bill is an important step in establishing a national occupational licensing system for selected occupations. The national licensing system will remove inconsistencies in licensing certain occupations across the state and territory jurisdictions, will reduce the cost of licensees operating in multiple jurisdictions and allow for a much more mobile workforce. Again, I thank honourable members for their support and commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

Mr PISONI: In the minister's speech in the other place, she referred to the fact that reward payments could be threatened. When she spoke to me about this issue before Christmas she also expressed concern that there could be a financial penalty for South Australia if we could not demonstrate that we were taking some action in moving this forward. Can you inform the house whether or not there will be any financial penalty, because we are now at the end of February and the legislation still has not gone through the parliament? Can you elaborate on what the minister's concerns were back in November, and inform the committee whether there will, in fact, be any penalty for the state of South Australia?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: This piece of legislation is one of the 27 regulatory reforms under the national partnership agreement to deliver a seamless national economy, and one of only 10 which are tied to reward payments under the seamless national economy. South Australia and several other jurisdictions—Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, and Tasmania—did not meet the interim milestone under the NPA of delivering application laws by December 2010. This delay could potentially result in some reduction in the maximum possible reward payment of $14.275 million that is available to the state in 2011-12, based on the 2010-11 performance against NPA milestones. However, the delay in passage does not threaten the establishment of the NOLA Board on time and was a consequence of a three-month delay in the passage of the model legislation in the lead jurisdiction—Victoria.

South Australia made every effort to have the legislation passed by the end of 2010, with the introduction and passage in November in the upper house, but it was unable to achieve passage through both houses within the available sitting days. So, primarily, the reason for the delay was the delay in the passage of the lead legislation in Victoria. Ultimately, it would be a matter for the COAG Reform Council to consider, but I think, given those mitigating circumstances, it is unlikely that we would be penalised.

Mr PISONI: Are you able, then, to give us a date of proclamation? I know that generally there can often be quite a lapse of time. Have you got a date in mind for the proclamation?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I cannot see any reason why there would be a delay in the proclamation. I am advised that there are provisions in the national regulatory framework which are already in operation. We would want to see this legislation proclaimed as soon as practicable. There is no reason to delay proclamation.

Mr PISONI: I have another question, and I think it does relate to the commencement of the bill. You mentioned that the intention of the bill would be to reduce the cost of working across borders. Will we see any increase in licensing fees for those people who perhaps do not need the requirement of working across borders, for example, the single, self-employed contractor who requires a licensing fee, whether it be for plumbing or electrical work? Will we be seeing any increases in those fees as a result of these changes?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No. The agreement provides for the states and territories to continue to set and collect their licence fees. You will have to apply for your licence in your primary jurisdiction. That provision is there essentially to stop people licence shopping for the cheapest licence.

The licence fees for in-scope occupations in South Australia will need to be restructured extensively to reflect the new categories, classes, possible bundling of certain types of licence and different renewal periods. It is anticipated this work will be undertaken later this year and will be finalised early next year. Given the restructure that will have to happen, it is not possible to guarantee that fees paid by any particular individual will not increase, but there will not be a national fee. They will still be set at a state or territory level and you will have to pay the licence fee that is applicable in your primary jurisdiction.

Mr PISONI: To tease that out a little bit, any increases in licensing fees will not be as a direct result of the legislation?

The Hon. J.J. Snelling interjecting:

Mr PISONI: I note that you mentioned timing and renewals. Is part of the restructuring plan to see uniform renewal periods? For example, would every electrician's renewal be due on 1 July, or are we looking at having every single licence renewal due on the same date and for the same length of time; or will it be different periods for different professions or trades?

The CHAIR: I should point out that we seem to be moving somewhat from part 1, clause 2 into rather interesting other areas. Are any of these issues that you could perhaps bring up in other parts of the bill?

Mr PISONI: Once these are covered, I am done.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I think what the member for Unley is getting at is: will every electrician's licence come up for renewal on 1 July every year? I think that is what he is perhaps asking.

Mr PISONI: I am just trying to get some idea.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, that will not be the case. You will apply for your licence. Your licence, for example, might be for three years. You apply for it and it will be valid for three years from the time you first obtained your licence. So, it will not be a uniform thing; it will depend on when you have been granted your licence. It will work in the same way as car registration works at the moment. Your registration expires a certain period after you have paid your registration fee.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (3 to 165, schedule) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Treasurer, Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education) (12:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank honourable members for their support for the bill, and I thank officers in the preparation of it.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT