Parliamentary Speeches
Occupational Licensing Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2009 (17/06/2009)
Debate resumed from 4 June 2009.
Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina) [1.18 p.m.]: As the shadow Minister for Small Business and Regulatory Reform I lead for the Opposition on the Occupational Licensing Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2009. The Coalition does not oppose the bill, but we have some concerns about the legislation. This bill is the New South Wales Government's attempt to comply with the reforms agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments in July 2008. The Council of Australian Governments identified a need to have a national trade licensing system that would remove inconsistencies across State borders and allow skilled tradespeople to work anywhere in Australia. The purpose of the bill is to amend various pieces of legislation to remove certain licences in New South Wales. The New South Wales Better Regulation Office conducted a review of occupations that need licences and found that in at least five cases licences were not necessary and did not achieve benefits in terms of consumer protection. The Government has determined that these licences represent an unnecessary cost to industry as well as consumers, and wishes to remove the licences from legislation.
The Government claims that businesses will save more than $900,000 a year in compliance costs with no decrease in consumer protection. The bill amends the Home Building Act 2004 and will remove licences for floor finishers and coverers, kit home suppliers, lift mechanics and pre-purchase property inspectors. The bill also removes the licensing of optical dispensers by repealing the Optical Dispensers Act 1963 and amending the Health Care Complaints Act to ensure that those operating as optical dispensers continue to be subject to that Act. It is intended that the Act will be repealed in July 2010 to coincide with the establishment of a national registration scheme for health professionals.
Returning to the building aspects of this legislation, it amends the Act to clarify that kit home suppliers must continue to meet contractual and information disclosure requirements and that disputes concerning kit home suppliers may continue to be heard by the Home Building Division of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. I have concerns about the lack of consultation by the Government with key stakeholders in the course of developing the amendments in this bill. Indeed, the Master Builders Association of New South Wales has indicated to me that it was not notified about the bill or provided with a copy of the bill when it was introduced by the Government. That is despite the Master Builders Association making a submission to the review of the licensing of selected occupations. As is often the case, the first time stakeholders heard of this legislation was when the Opposition sent it to them for their comments.
For many years, business operators in New South Wales have complained about over-regulation and red tape. This bill will remove unnecessary regulation, save compliance costs for businesses and consumers and, importantly, the Government claims it will not adversely affect consumer protection. Skilled people from interstate and overseas will find it easier to take on projects or set up businesses in New South Wales without the unnecessary cost of obtaining a licence. Consumers are being told by the Government that they can rest easy, knowing the bill does not take away the protections afforded to all consumers under fair trading and contract laws. But, as I said earlier, the Coalition and industry groups have some concerns about the new legislation.
The Master Builders Association of New South Wales says that the State Government promised a complete re-write of the legislation, not simply an amendment to the Home Building Act. The Master Builders Association believes the entire Act needs attention, saying it has been amended continually since it commenced in 1997. The association also has concerns about the removal of licences for builders carrying out property inspections for people before they purchase. The purchase of a property for most people will be their biggest outlay of money. They deserve to know that the people they contract to carry out pre-purchase property inspections are skilled and competent and are able to provide a credible, honest, pre-purchase report. The Master Builders Association questions whether all builders will have the knowledge and expertise to provide reports on a wide range of building types, which will be expected of them.
Another concern of the Master Builders Association is that the removal of licensing for the licensed category of flooring, kit home suppliers and property inspections effectively removes data from the public register of the Office of Fair Trading, consequently removing information available to a consumer regarding any prosecutions, infringements, et cetera. Will the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary who replies to the debate address the issue of the loss of information on the public register of the Office of Fair Trading? In relation to kit home suppliers, the bill omits part of 16D of the Act but retains certain requirements for contracts, including a threshold on deposits. However, one benefit that currently exists with licensing is that it clearly identifies the licensee or licensed entity, which in turn must be recorded on the contract. The effect of the change will mean that an unscrupulous kit home supplier can use multiple variations of names, entities and trading names to the extent that it may be difficult to determine with whom the consumer has contracted. There are also concerns that the removal of licensing will provide an avenue for unscrupulous or previously removed contractors to re-enter the industry as kit home suppliers.
In relation to floor finishers and coverers, the bill on page 13, subsection (4) attempts to exclude the installation of all forms of flooring material from licensing requirements, with the exception of structural flooring. However, neither the Act nor the regulations provide a definition of "structural" or "structural flooring". The clause may have the unintended consequences of exempting other flooring applications such as ceramic floor tiles. Another point to consider is one raised by the Australasian Dispensing Opticians Association with regard to amendments to the Act. The association, in a submission to the Council of Australian Governments, stated:
without this regulation there will be no responsibility for an unlicensed spectacle seller to accept responsibility for accuracy or visual comfort/health to the client and the prescriber.
The dispensing of optical appliances should be treated not as a trade but as a health service. The association has concerns that removing the licensing requirements could result in a proliferation of untrained practitioners and will impact negatively on optical health outcomes. In these tough economic times New South Wales needs to do all it can to retain existing businesses and encourage new entrepreneurs.
Whilst I support the bill, the Government needs to undertake major reform rather than applauding itself for claiming to save businesses $900,000. In my opinion, removing five licences, resulting in savings of $900,000, is not a significant reduction in the regulatory burden. The Government needs to initiate major changes that will cement the position of New South Wales as the number one place in Australia to do business. Notwithstanding those comments, as the shadow Minister for Regulatory Reform, I am pleased that the Government is seeking to reduce the regulatory burden—however small the changes are. However, I urge the Government to consider the concerns of stakeholder groups that have been raised with me and with the shadow Minister for Fair Trading. I support the bill but remain concerned about some of the changes as outlined by the Master Builders Association of New South Wales and the New South Wales Optical Dispensers Licensing Board.
