Dris proposal for national licensing of the plumbing and gasfitting occupations

1.4‘Preferred’ national licensing option – Three tier sub-option 2

The preferred option is the three tier, sub-option 2. The following provides a discussion of the merits of each option and the rationale for the three tier, sub-option 2 being the preferred option.

The three tier sub-options are identical in all respects apart from the qualification requirements at the full licensee level, e.g. the categories, scopes of work and non-skills requirements are identical in both models.

The three tier licensing model reflects the current approach in many jurisdictions:

Contractor licence: the licence holder is authorised to contract to do the regulated work.

Full licence: the licence holder is authorised to carry out regulated work unsupervised and is able to sign off on the technical compliance under jurisdictional conduct legislation, but cannot contract with the public.

Tradesperson registration: the registration holder must be supervised to undertake regulated work, cannot sign off on the technical compliance under jurisdictional conduct legislation and cannot contract with the public.

The three tier proposal is based on the view that there is a skills distinction between the (full) licence and tradesperson registration levels that should be maintained. The IAC advice was that neither a Certificate III in Plumbing nor a Certificate III in Gas Fitting qualification provided sufficient skills for a person to undertake the main functions of plumbing and gasfitting work and that a plumbing or gasfitting tradesperson holding a Certificate III in this occupational area needed a further period of training and experience before they could work unsupervised.

The three tier, sub-option1 – widely supported by industry – increases qualification requirements at the full licence level for a number of categories. Such an increase could not be supported under the Intergovernmental Agreement, which specifies that arrangements should be ‘effective and proportional’ ‘while ensuring economic efficiency’. As there has been no demonstrated failure in current arrangements, there does not appear to be a case to increase regulation.

The most deregulatory option is the two tier option. This option provides the greatest quantifiable net benefit of all the options considered as it removes the licence tier of registered tradesperson. It reduces the qualification requirements for a full licensee, removing any requirement for additional Certificate IV units following attainment of a Certificate III qualification in plumbing or gasfitting. It could therefore increase competition as it would decrease the requirement for entry into the occupation. Estimates of the economic benefit of this option indicate that the ongoing net annual impact of choosing this option would amount to $90.24 million, compared to the three tier, sub-option 2 (the proposed option), which provides $52.19 million and the three tier, sub-option 1, which provides only $38.02 million.

A majority of steering committee members suggested this model as being consistent with other trade areas (the electrical occupations and refrigeration and air-conditioning) which require only a Certificate III before a person is able to work independently. Under the two tier model the full licence level and tradesperson level would essentially be combined. The model has not been fully worked through in terms of its ramifications for skills requirements in relation to the scopes of work for each category of work developed by the IAC. It is clear that the training provided by the Certificate III level would not provide sufficient skills for licence holders to undertake the extent of activity described in the proposed scopes of work, including working unsupervised and signing off on technical compliance, as these were developed in relation to a three-tier model where the registered tradesperson and full licensee carried out the scope of work at different levels of complexity. The scope of work outlined for the different levels of licence holder, while described in the same way is, in practice, differentiated by the qualifications held.

It was observed by steering committee members that the additional training requirement to move between these levels may not always be available or funded and could create a barrier to progression within the trade. As an example, it has been suggested that the estimated cost to reach a (full) licence level for a drainer would be approximately $3,500 and entail around 276 hours of classroom delivery.

This option is not proposed however, as the consensus of members of the Interim Advisory Committee (IAC), regulator working group, Interim Occupational Licensing Advisory Committee (OLAC) (between them, the groups represent industry representatives, unions, regulators and the training sector) and individual licence holders was that the proposed changes under this model would provide inadequate training for those undertaking regulated work, leading to ‘practitioners eligible to work beyond their demonstrated competency’ and significantly increasing risk to both workers and consumers. In a combined IAC and regulator working group position paper developed in response to the original proposal of this option, it was pointed out that ‘the skills recognition mapping under the AQF [the Australian Quality Framework which supports training quality] clearly delineates that it is only at the Certificate IV level that a qualification-holder is expected to take responsibility for their own outputs in relation to specified quality standards’. The paper continues:

‘The Certificate III level qualification alone does not provide the competencies necessary to proficiently carry out the full extent of the activities envisaged in a given scope for a category of work (e.g. water, gasfitting, drainage). Accordingly, any reduction in the qualification requirements for performing the work reserved for holders of a certifier licence [equivalent to a full licence level] (as recommended by the IACs) will pose significant health and safety risks to practitioners, consumers of plumbing work and the wider community’.

‘There are a number of common competencies that are necessary for all categories of plumbing work to ensure the attainment of skills for critical functions like the design, commissioning, testing and sizing of plumbing and gas fitting work. These competencies are essential for all plumbers and gas fitters seeking to perform these functions and are not sufficiently provided under a Certificate III qualification. These functions form intrinsic components for satisfactorily undertaking the majority of plumbing and gas fitting work, and collectively they play a significant role as safety control measures which ensure that plumbing and gas fitting work is competently and appropriately planned, undertaken and made operational.’

A number of the Certificate IV competencies proposed as eligibility requirements for a full licence are currently requirements for licensing in almost all jurisdictions. For example, the majority of jurisdictions currently require applicants for a water plumbing, sanitary plumbing or drainer licence to have completed the relevant Certificate IV competencies dealing with the planning, sizing and layout of systems associated with this work. The position paper also indicated that a three tier structure provides for a period of supervised workplace training and experience development. ‘It is the combination of the higher level competencies and the on-the-job training that delivers the optimised outcome necessary for this industry’. It was pointed out that not all registered tradespersons will seek to advance to full licence status.

The IAC and regulator working group considered that, rather than a barrier, the three tier structure ‘is more appropriately characterised as a fast track to licensing by creating a lower level threshold requirement for entry level training.’ If all entrants were required to complete both the Certificate III national plumbing qualification and the additional Certificate IV units considered necessary to achieve full plumbing or gasfitting skills, this would create a greater barrier to entry than if the structure provided for a supervised level of licensee, as proposed.

The original majority Steering Committee decision to examine the two tier option noted that ‘a model could be adopted where endorsements are available to recognise the additional training’ and ‘these could be expanded to include other areas of work that need specialised training that is not covered by the Certificate III’ (COAG National Licensing Steering Committee Record of Outcomes, 23 March 2011). Work has not been undertaken on these additional endorsements or the qualification requirements that might support them. This work could be undertaken by NOLA, should this option be supported on the basis of net quantifiable benefit alone. As the key stakeholder organisations who provided advice during the policy development process are also those who could be expected to participate in NOLA’s advisory mechanisms, it is possible that a number of endorsements could be introduced over time to cover the work that these stakeholders consider is not adequately trained for in the Certificate III. In that case, the three tier, sub-option 2 might present, in comparison, a more streamlined response to the national approach.

The IAC and RWG challenged the comparison with the electrical industry licensing structure, indicating that plumbing and gasfitting covers a broader range of licensed work than the electrical occupations and therefore requires a more diverse range of competencies than an equivalent electrician. The following simplified characterisation was included in a position paper developed to indicate the views of the IAC and RWG:

General Comparison: Electricians & Plumbers/Gasfitters A general level electrician runs one service; electricity, installs to one major standard; AS/NZS 3000 uses one main material; wire (albeit in two or three configurations at this level) with a few end points such as switches and plugs. They are required to certify and do tests with equipment that either pass or fail without calculations (other than a few critical measurements such as distance between power and water outlets) or deliberation. By comparison the basic work of a general context plumber and gasfitter requires runs of numerous services such as gravity sewer drainage (connected to gravity or vacuum sewer mains or to onsite treatment), cold water (could include drinking water, recycled water, rain water etc.), heated water (water heaters could be electric, gas, solar etc.), gas service (could be natural gas, LP Gas or other), sanitary plumbing and fixtures. This breadth means they must be familiar with a broader range of technical standards, as a general minimum: AS/NZS 3500.1, AS/NZS 3500.2, AS/NZS 3500.4 and AS/NZS 5601. They will also work with numerous materials including but not limited to: PVC-U, PE, PB, composite plastics/metal and copper with each material having specific fixing methods and a myriad of jointing systems. They will certify to tests that include geophysical (selection of bedding material for in-ground services), compaction, hydrostatic, air or smoke on gravity drainage and sanitary plumbing, pressure tests on water and gas services, temperature tests at storage and outlets of heated water services.

All three advisory groups strongly recommended a three tier approach to the licensing of plumbing and gasfitting as providing the structure which most appropriately delivers the skills required in the industry, and which therefore best mitigates the risks identified, when compared with the two tier option.

Consultation feedback

Overall, the majority of those submissions favouring national licensing, and which expressed a preference for a particular national option, supported the three tier, sub-option 1, which is the option developed by the IAC. This was overwhelmingly the case for the large number of ‘form letter’ submissions (template submissions), many of them originating in the Master Plumbers organisations, but was also a position supported by many peak organisations.

A majority of respondents, particularly those providing form letters, indicated that they did not support the two tier model as this provided an unacceptable decrease in skills required and would increase consumer and worker risk. Approximately 25 per cent of those favouring national licensing and responding through the online survey did express support for the two tier option however, and these respondents were mainly from New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Economically, this option provides the greatest net benefit but the increased risk arising from such an approach suggested that this approach would be difficult to implement as it would be unacceptable to many sectors of the industry.