Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill 2021. Before I came into this place, I was a builder for 10 years, a qualified carpenter and joiner. I then went back and did a law degree and ended up practising in construction law. I have been intricately involved in the building industry for the last 32 years, either as a hands-on builder or as a building lawyer. I have reviewed a number of pieces of legislation on behalf of the Queensland government and written a number of reports for the Queensland government. As much as I often in this place pay the Queensland government out at every opportunity, I will not pay them out in relation to their licensing scheme in the building industry.

We all know that the way that we administer occupational licensing, whether it be for carpenters and joiners or for just about any other trade or business or profession, is very different between the states and territories. We are still a collection of six colonies when it comes to occupational licensing and that's to our regret. When it comes to the building industry, Queensland has, in my considered view, the best licensing scheme for those in the building industry, bar none. We know that there are other states that certainly take a lesser approach.

I've heard members opposite, and indeed the member for Melbourne, talk earlier about a race to the bottom. If this was a race to the bottom, I would be opposing the bill. I have fought all my professional life for better standards in the building industry. It's very important that we, I believe, have the best standards for occupational trades in this country. We've seen what can go wrong in the last few years with some of our building failures in New South Wales and in the ACT. What we don't want to see are those sorts of building failures and shoddy building practices being replicated in other states, and this bill would not permit that. I'll come back to that in a moment.

Let's just talk briefly about the merits of this bill in the first instance. I've heard speakers before me talk about the merits of deregulation. A New South Welsh person doesn't need a Victorian driver's licence when they drive into Victoria, and most Australians would understand that is a good thing. We live in a federation. We want to try, as best as we humanly possibly can, to provide all avenues for businesses to be able to engage in work around the entire country. I don't think that anybody would quibble with that.

That's particularly so when we, as a country, are clawing—some would say rapidly, in fact—our way out of this pandemic, from an economic perspective. We need to provide as many opportunities as we can for businesses to compete on a national and, indeed, a global scale. But we'll start with the national scale. We need to encourage Victorian builders—in fact, we'll need Victorian builders operating in New South Wales. One of the beautiful aspects of this bill, particularly in times of recovery from natural disasters, is that we can surge workforces. When there's a natural disaster in New South Wales, as we've seen, and in my home state and my own home area of South-East Queensland, the reality is that we don't have enough trades to surge workforces without calling upon other states. We've all seen the way that works, say, with the CFA or the SES; we always call upon other states. The same thing happens in the building industry: when we have a major flood, fire or a cyclone we call upon practitioners—occupational licensees—from other states to come and help us out. So the concept is not foreign and it's a sensible one. The concept will open up opportunities for occupational licensees around the country. These are sensible provisions.

I want to return to the concerns that have been raised by those opposite in wanting to refer this matter to a Senate inquiry. They say that's because there are concerns that some states don't have the same requirements of those practitioners and that having this automatic mutual recognition scheme would somehow lead to a race to the bottom. That argument would have some merit but for the fact that section 42S provides a minister—no, let's talk examples, because it's probably easier that way.

Let's take commercial builders operating in New South Wales. I think it's pretty well accepted that commercial builders in New South Wales do not need the same sort of rigour or to meet the same standards as commercial builders in Queensland, reiterating my views earlier that Queensland has the highest licensing standards of all the states. If Mick de Brenni, who is the Queensland minister responsible at this point in time, believed that the licensing requirements for New South Wales commercial builders were unsatisfactory in allowing them to operate as commercial builders in Queensland he could exempt those builders from operating in Queensland. Section 42S of this bill enables him to do that and I accept that he may well do that in certain instances—I just use that as an example for the sake of argument. Mick de Brenni, the Queensland minister responsible for the Queensland Building and Construction Commission, could exempt New South Wales commercial builders from taking a commercial building licence or acting as commercial builders in Queensland if he were of the view that allowing those practitioners to operate in Queensland would be injurious to consumer protection, or the environment, or animal welfare or the health or safety of workers or the public.

That same principle applies across all of the occupational trades, whether it be electricians, plumbers or carpenters. If a state minister was of the view that a particular trade in another state or territory did not meet the same standards then the minister could exclude that trade from operating in Queensland, for example. That's really important because, as the member for Melbourne spoke about earlier, not only does that eliminate the race to the bottom but it does the opposite—it encourages those states that do have lax licensing standards of their occupational trades to lift their game. I can assure you that, if occupational trades in a particular state or territory are made exempt by Queensland, for example, those occupational trades will be onto their own state government to lift the licensing requirements and to lift the standards so that they can compete on the national stage.

This will have the absolute opposite effect to what those members opposite are arguing. It will not be a race to the bottom; it will lift the standards of all occupational trades. That would be a very good thing in my world, in the building industry, in particular but also across all occupational trades. No-one would quibble with lifting the bar rather than lowering the bar. Whether it's the building industry, the teaching profession or whatever it might be, we should all be aspiring to look at nation's best practice. I have been a practitioner in the building industry for the last 32-odd years and I can guarantee you that Queensland has the best licensing standards. I know it's not perfect. No system designed, facilitated or administered by a human being is perfect, but it's the best there is in the country. All the other states and territories will be encouraged by this bill to lift their standards to ensure that residents in their state can compete on the national stage.

I haven't heard all of the debate in this place, but I imagine that, if someone hasn't done it already, someone will raise the argument: what's to stop a resident of Queensland who can't meet the tough licensing standards from applying for their builders licence, their electricians licence or their carpenters licence in another state or territory that has lax standards and saying in their home state, 'I've got my licence from another state. I now want to operate as a builder in this state'? Again, section 42A of this bill prevents people from doing that. Under section 42A of the bill you cannot have your principal place of residence or operate a business in, say, the state of Queensland and get your licence in Victoria, New South Wales, Tassie or the ACT. If you're a resident of Queensland—in that you have your principal place of residence in Queensland—or you operate your business in Queensland, that's where you have to get your licence.

These are really sensible reforms. I totally get that those members opposite have some concerns. We don't want to lower the bar. I want to assure you that this is not lowering the bar. This bill has been considered. These concerns around lifting things up rather than lowering them down are contained in the bill. No-one wants to see repeats of the shoddy building work that we've seen in apartments in New South Wales. We don't want to see that replicated across Australia. No-one would.

This bill would protect, under section 42A and 42S from that sort of conduct. It's a sensible bill. It would enable contractors and occupational trades to operate without having to get individual licences in every state. That's a good thing. That's a sensible thing. I'm still a registered builder in Queensland and it costs me $600 or $700 a year. I don't want to have to pay that in every state and territory in this country. This bill will prevent that from happening. It's sensible. I recommend it to the House.

See this speech in context