Dris proposal for national licensing of the electrical occupations

66.2National 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 Consultation RIS. The Electrical 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.

66.3Submissions summary

Comments on both the Consultation RIS and the draft legislation were invited until 12 October 2012. Stakeholders were invited to comment using an online electronic survey, or by any other written or electronic means.

National licensing is the model preferred by a significant majority of respondents. Of all submissions where a view was expressed, around 85 per cent supported national licensing. Automatic mutual recognition was favoured in around 8 eight per cent of all submissions. Supporters of national licensing cited increased labour mobility, harmonisation of licence categories, scopes of work and qualification and ease of understanding as being most important.

The electronic responses were drawn from jurisdictions as follows: New South Wales: 21.5 per cent; Victoria: 13.2 per cent; Queensland: 33.3 per cent; Western Australia: 21.5 per cent; South Australia: 11.4 per cent; Tasmania: 8.8 per cent; Australian Capital Territory: 2.6 per cent and Northern Territory: 3.9 per cent.

The electronic responses were provided by the following categories of stakeholder: Consumers: 7 per cent; Employees: 46.1 per cent: Employers: 30.3 per cent; Industry Associations: 6.6 per cent; Regulators: 2.6 per cent; Sole traders: 16.2 per cent; Trade unions: 1.3 per cent and others: 16.7 per cent.

A sub-total of 831 form template submissions was received, out of the total of 1,106. The form templates were typified by a number of characteristics such as the arrival of multiple submissions in the same envelope with the same return address, email correspondence still attached to the submissions that encouraged their production, templates that originated from the same source (for example a peak body), or advice from organisations indicating campaigns about their activities.

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

66.4Overview of selected stakeholder positions

Consultation was undertaken with the IAC and the Steering Committee, as well as with regulators, employers, employees and the general public (consumers). Major stakeholders supported national licensing over the other two options. Several stakeholders expressed views which were divergent from the national licensing model put forward in the Consultation RIS. These views were outlined in Chapter 3.

Table 5.1 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).

Table 5.1: Selected stakeholder positions in relation to the three options

Stakeholder	Option 1: National licensing	Option 2: Automatic mutual recognition	Option 3: Status quo
Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union – Electrical Trades Union	Support
National Electrical and Communications Association	Support
Master Electricians Australia	Support
Energy Networks Association	Support
Australian Industry Group	Support

Key stakeholder submissions, while in favour of national licensing overall, highlighted particular areas of divergence from the proposed model. Energy Networks Association (ENA) supports separate categories for lineworkers, plus some additional categories. The Electrical Trades Union (ETU), while supporting the principle electrical licence categories, expressed concerns with some definitions of restricted electrical licences, and noted the importance of identifying a list of trades and callings for administrative staff. The ETU also supports inclusion of a plug and cord licence. AiGroup supports extension of line worker and electrical fitter categories beyond existing jurisdictions, and strongly endorses the apprenticeship pathway as a means to gaining electrical qualifications. The National Electrical and Communications Association (NECA) supports a broader scope of work for electricians, to include all linework and cable jointing work, supports an apprenticeship-only pathway, and supports skills-based eligibility requirements for contractors. Master Electricians Australia (MEA) supports the inclusion of a plug and cord work licence and the inclusion of business and occupational health and safety skills for electrical contractors.

Respondents providing comments through the electronic survey were strongly supportive, or supportive of most of the proposed electrical licence categories: electrician (90 per cent), electrical fitter (80 per cent), electrical contractor (82 per cent), electrical line worker (71 per cent), electrical cable jointer (65per cent). Support for the restricted electrical licence categories ranged from 43 per cent to 59 per cent, possibly reflecting the ETU comment in its submission that further work needed to be undertaken in regard to these categories, particularly in regard to the identification of the appropriate trades and callings to which they would be applicable. This view was supported by the multiple template submissions. Nearly two-thirds of respondents were supportive of the national licensing proposals in regard to nominees, personal probity and financial probity. Around 54 per cent of respondents were supportive of the proposed entry level qualifications, although 24 per cent were neutral.