Experience requirements
Under national licensing, experience requirements for all property licence holders would be removed, meaning some licensees could obtain their qualification sooner. The direct benefit to licence holders of removing experience requirements could be measured by the wage difference between unqualified real estate workers and fully accredited licence holders. The wage differential cannot be fully attributed to the experience requirement, as a variety of factors could affect wage levels. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a wage differential of 50 cents per hour can be attributable to the experience requirement.
The actual experience requirements in each jurisdiction vary. To provide an indicative estimate of the potential benefit, we have assumed a conservative estimate of one year for all jurisdictions that require an experience requirement.
Table 4.65: Benefits associated with the removal of experience requirements
Assumptions
|
Unit
|
Value
|
Source
|
Assumed wage differential between agents and representatives attributable to experience requirement
|
All jurisdictions (where an experience requirement exists)
|
$ per licensee
|
$0.50 per hour
|
Assumption used in this report for indicative purposes
|
Years of experience required
|
All jurisdictions (where an experience requirement exists)
|
Years per licensee
|
1 year
|
Assumption used in this report for indicative purposes
|
Working hours per year
|
All jurisdictions
|
Hours per licensee
|
1,800
|
Assumption based on 7.5 working hours per day, 5 working days per week, 48 working weeks per year
| Improved labour mobility
To provide an indication of the potential benefit due to an increase in labour mobility as a result of national licensing, this Consultation RIS draws on the work undertaken in this area by the Productivity Commission. For the purposes of this analysis, the following assumptions have used to calculate an indicative estimate.
Table 4.66: Increase in real GDP due to national licensing
Assumption
|
Unit
|
Value
|
Source
|
Increase in real GDP due to national licensing
|
Increase in real GDP due to full labour mobility
|
%
|
0.3%
|
Productivity Commission 2009, Review of mutual recognition schemes: research report, Canberra, p. 73.
|
Proportion of full labour mobility attributable to national licensing
|
%
|
10%
|
This assumption was made for illustrative purposes and was agreed to in discussions between the Commonwealth Treasury and the Office of Best Practice Regulation
The aim of this estimate is to provide guidance on the potential impact in the context of mutual recognition, which has partly facilitated labour mobility under the base case
|
Table 4.67: Real GDP
Assumption
|
Unit
|
Value
|
Source
|
Real GDP
|
National real GDP in 2011
|
$
|
$1.335 trillion
|
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011, Australian national accounts: national income, expenditure and product (gross domestic product, chain volume measures), catalogue no. 5206.0, December, 2012, www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/5206.0Dec%202011?OpenDocument
|
Table 4.68: The property industry as a proportion of real GDP
Assumption
|
Unit
|
Value
|
Source
|
Proportion of real GDP attributable to the property services industry
|
National
|
%
|
1.1%
|
This percentage is based on the total number of property licensees as a proportion of the total number of persons employed in Australia. Total employed persons as at March 2012 was 11.49 million, and there are 127,000 property licensees (see licence numbers above)
Total employed persons, Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012, Labour force, Australia (Labour force status by sex), March 2012 catalogue no. 6202
The benefit of perfect labour mobility estimated by the Productivity Commission was estimated for ‘registered workers’. Therefore, it may be more accurate to take property services as a proportion of registered workers, which would lead to a higher estimate than 1.1%. However, to be conservative, an estimate based on the assumptions above was agreed to in discussions between the Commonwealth Treasury and the Office of Best Practice Regulation.
|
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
