Decision ris proposal for national licensing of the property occupations

4.National Occupational Licensing Authority

Subsequent to the close of submissions, NOLA convened the Interim Occupational Licensing Advisory Committees (OLACs), which also provided comment on the policy options in the CRIS. The Property OLAC comprised similar representation to that of the IAC.

The OLAC provided an industry perspective on amendments that may be appropriate to ensure an effective national licensing system. NOLA also convened meetings of relevant state and territory regulators to consider the issues raised by the OLACs.

5.Other consultation

Further meetings between senior jurisdictional officials and the Commonwealth were convened to attempt to resolve issues that were of particular concern to certain states and territories. Industry representatives also met with Senator the Hon. Penny Wong, Minister for Finance and Deregulation and Senator the Hon. Chris Evans, the then Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, to express their views on national licensing.

Views expressed in the above consultation process were considered in the formulation of the final proposals outlined in this Decision RIS which will be considered by the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments through the Standing Council on Federal Financial Relations (SCFFR).

6.Submission summary

A total of 802 submissions were received on the Property Occupations Consultation RIS. Submissions were received in a number of ways: electronic survey responses, use of the hard copy template that focused on particular elements of the proposed model and other written means. A large number of submissions had very similar styled responses, and are considered as form template styled submissions in this chapter and in Chapter 3.⁸³

Of the total responses approximately 67 per cent originated from Victoria (approximately 83 per cent of all hard copy responses), 13 per cent originated from Queensland, 4 per cent from New South Wales, 4 per cent from Western Australia, 3 per cent from South Australia, 0.5 per cent, from Tasmania, 1 per cent from the Australian Capital Territory and 0.5 per cent from the Northern Territory. Those submissions that covered all states and territories formed approximately 6 per cent of the total with 1 per cent not identifying any location.

Of the 252 hard copy responses received, only 13 per cent appear to be from individuals not using a template styled submission.

Stakeholder feedback on the Consultation RIS expressed support for the concept of national licensing in 31 per cent of submissions. However, 42 per cent of submissions included support for automatic mutual recognition. Many of those who supported automatic mutual recognition did, however, indicate they would have supported national licensing if some elements of the model were changed in a number of areas such as qualifications. The remainder support the status quo or were silent on the issue.

The understanding that automatic mutual recognition would maintain existing licence categories, scopes of work and qualification requirements was assigned as very important by 70.8 per cent of the 72 electronic survey respondents. In contrast, 53 per cent of 187 respondents not supporting automatic mutual recognition listed the non-harmonisation of licence categories, scopes of work and qualification as a very important to their decision.

The lower establishment cost for governments automatic to implement mutual recognition was very important to 20 per cent of respondents, and only targeting licensees who wish to work in more than one jurisdiction was assigned as very important to 36 per cent of the 72 electronic survey respondents.

The importance of labour mobility was important to 35 per cent, and very important to 32 per cent of electronic survey respondents, which is a very similar breakdown to the results for national licensing.

During the consultations and in a small number of submissions, a view has been expressed that the national licensing system would not be a truly national system. In some jurisdictions, not all categories will be licensed. For example, a licence is not currently required for strata managing work in some jurisdictions. Under national licensing a jurisdiction will not be required to adopt a national licence category that is not currently regulated by that jurisdiction when national licensing commences, in accordance with clause 4.2(f) of the Intergovernmental Agreement for a National Licensing System for Specified Occupations (the Intergovernmental Agreement). (i.e. the jurisdiction could choose for that category of regulated work to remain unlicensed in that jurisdiction).

Overall, the majority of submissions that supported national licensing expressed concerns about specific elements of the licensing model. These concerns were strongly supported by a large number of submissions; many of the respondents identified as members of the Real Estate Institute of Australia (REIA) or its state institutes. However, the concerns were not necessarily supported by other peak organisations, such as the Shopping Centre Council of Australia. A substantial number of responses, including those from other peak organisations, nominated national licensing, without responding to any further questions or expressing an opinion on elements of the model.

All submissions, with the exception of those identified by respondents as not for public release, are available online at www.nola.gov.au, and at Attachment C.

7.Overview of selected stakeholder submissions

Consultation was undertaken with the IAC, Steering Committee, Interim OLAC, industry, regulators, employers, employees and the general public (consumers).

Table 5.2 below broadly outlines key stakeholders support regarding the three options considered in the Consultation RIS (with some or little concern over aspects of that model). The Australian Livestock & Property Agents Association (ALPA) indicated support for Automatic Mutual Recognition in its submission stating that national licensing does not offer consumer protection. However, ALPA does strongly support the concept of national licensing with changes to the model proposed in the Consultation RIS.

Table 5.2: Selected key industry stakeholder positions in relation to the various options

Key Stakeholder	Option 1: National licensing	Option 2: Automatic mutual recognition	Option 3: Status quo
Australian Institute of Business Brokers	Support***
Australian Livestock and Property Agents Association		Support**
Australian Property Institute			Support
Construction and Property Services Industry Council	Support
Property Council of Australia	Support
Real Estate Institute of Australia and affiliated state institutes	Support*		Support
Real Estate Institute of NSW	Support*
Real Estate Association of NSW	Support
Strata Community Australia	Support
The Shopping Centre Council of Australia	Support
* Subject to inclusion of non-residential property work, mandatory continuing professional development and preferred qualifications under national licensing. ** Subject to inclusion of non-residential property work. *** Subject to inclusion of non-residential property work, mandatory continuing professional development, changes to the proposed qualification licensing and a separate licence category for property managers. Chapter 3 includes a range of stakeholder views, including the key stakeholders listed in the table above, on elements of the proposed national licensing model.