review of plumbing and drainage regulation - … · submission – review of plumbing and drainage...

Submission – Review of Plumbing and Drainage Regulation

SUBMISSION

The authors of the Discussion Paper are to be highly commended on the extent of content and research that has been undertaken in developing the Discussion Paper. The Discussion Paper is a very professional consolidation of the existing framework, arrangements in other jurisdictions, potential options and alternative arrangements for technical standards etc, and provides a very clear and concise outline of the diversity of problems facing the plumbing industry.

The Master Plumbers and Mechanical Contractors Association of NSW is a registered union of employers representing plumbing contractors. The Association is registered as an industrial organisation with the NSW Industrial Relations Commission and with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for both NSW and the ACT.

The Association is extremely active not only in the industrial relations environment, but in training through participation with the Construction and Property Services Industry Skills Council (CPSISC), Construction Industry Training Advisory Board (CITAB) NSW, Steering Committees for the National Plumbing and Services Training Advisory Group (NPSTAG) and its involvement in regulation through participation in Standards Australia Committees and the Committee for Uniformity in Plumbing and Drainage Regulation (CUPDR) in NSW, which has oversight of the NSW Code of Practice for Plumbing and Drainage Regulation.

The Association in the past has made many submissions on the restructure of plumbing regulation and licensing in NSW. The latest of those submissions was to IPART – “Investigation into the burden of regulation in NSW and improving regulatory efficiency” – 28 February, 2006 which included a submission to the then Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability (DEUS) – “Current Plumbing Regulation Regime - 28 February, 2006. Copies of these submissions are included as Attachments.

The key focus in the Association’s submission to IPART was:

“the establishment of a single regulatory authority for the plumbing industry has been a long standing policy platform of the Association since the demise of the Building Services Corporation. The Association believes that a Plumbing Industry Regulatory Authority would bring to an end the multitude of regulatory regimes now controlling plumbing in NSW. The bodies that control/regulate plumbing in NSW are:-

Plumbing and Drainage Code of Practice NSW – Committee for Uniformity in Plumbing and Drainage Regulation (CUPDR) – Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability.

Sydney Water Corporation,

2


Hunter Water Corporation.

Department of Local Government – Local Councils and Water Authorities”.

Based on the fact that this has been the Association’s long held position, the Association can only accept, of the four options proposed in the Discussion Paper for reforming institutional arrangements in NSW – Option 4: All regulatory functions managed by a single agency.

The Association notes that this model received “significantly greater support than the other three options” in the 2002 Review and the Association’s position is that with the changing nature of the industry through technology, climate change and the new competition arrangements, that it is the only viable option to take the industry forward in the future.

The Discussion Paper references issues currently under consideration by COAG, specifically National Licensing System for Specific Occupations and the Review of the Intergovernmental Agreement for Australian Building Codes Board and National Construction Code Implementation.

The Association has made submissions on both of these COAG projects and in doing so, has set out in detail the need for adoption of the Plumbing Code of Australia by all States and Territories to unify plumbing regulation across the country. The rationale being that this is one of the key policy platforms of the National Plumbing Associations Alliance, (NPAA) - (Master Plumbers Associations representing – Tasmania, South Australia, ACT, NT, NSW and WA), i.e:-

The NPAA policy platform is:-

National licensing National industry regulation ; and National consistency in training delivery.

The position taken in the above submissions is that there must be a National Single Agency Model for licensing and that the Plumbing Code of Australia must be adopted by all States and Territories under a National Construction Codes Board to oversight the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and the Plumbing Code of Australia (PCA), but not the consolidation of the PCA into the BCA.

These submissions detail cogent reasons for the Association’s position on licensing and regulation and are extremely relevant to the questions posed within this Discussion Paper.

3


Accordingly, in relation to reforming technical arrangements in NSW the Association’s position is that Option 4: Adopt the Plumbing Code of Australia performance based approach must be adopted in NSW to take the industry into the future.

On this very point the Association notes that the Discussion Paper makes reference to the fact that the PCA has not been adopted in NSW. The Association makes the point that this is not strictly correct, but in part true, in that the Association’s submission on the National Construction Code on page 5 states:-

“The Committee for Uniformity in Plumbing and Drainage Regulation (CUPDR) in NSW has formally agreed on the adoption of the Plumbing Code of Australia, but as yet the NSW Government has not implemented that adoption, which is a significant impediment to national regulation of plumbing work. The IGA for the NCC needs to rectify this situation”.

The above submissions are included as Attachments to this submission.

SUMMARY

In respect of the feedback requested in the Discussion Paper, the Association’s position is that:-

INSTITUTION ARRANGEMENTS

Option 4 – All regulatory functions managed by a single agency is the model that must be adopted.

TECHNICAL ARRANGEMENTS

Option 4 – Adopt the Plumbing Codes of Australia performance based approach is the model that must be adopted.

IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW MODEL

The Discussion Paper raises the possibility of a staged approach for implementation of any models produced by this Review. The Association accepts that this very much relates to the introduction of competition and the outcomes of the NSW Local Water Utilities Review.

4


Notwithstanding, the Association is firmly of the view that in respect of the implementation of a single agency regulator and the adoption of the Plumbing Code of Australia, that these options must be implemented as a matter of urgency and not necessarily await the introduction of competition and the outcomes of the NSW Local Water Utilities Review.

The Association must emphasise again that this submission must be read in conjunction with the following attachments, which add much more content and detail to the questions raised in the Discussion Paper.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Submission: Review of Plumbing and Drainage Regulation in NSW, 5 December, 2008.

2. DEUS – Current Plumbing Regulation Regime, 28 February, 2006. 3. IPART – Investigation into the Burden of Regulation in NSW and

Improving Regulatory Efficiency. 4. Submission – Review of the Intergovernmental Agreement to ABCB

and National Construction Code Implementation, 3 December, 2008.

5. National Licensing System for Specialised Occupations, 31 October, 2008.

The Association wishes to express its appreciation to the Department of Water and Energy for the invitation to submit its views on this extremely important Discussion Paper. Should you require any further information or clarification on the issues raised, please do not hesitate to contact the Association’s General Manager on 02-87897000.

Paul Naylor General Manager MASTER PLUMBERS ASSOCIATION OF NSW

5 December, 2008

5

Master Plumbers Association of NSW – Attachment 2

`

28 February, 2006 Our ref: AIF-011 NIP-001

BY FACSIMILE: 8281 7353

Mr Lee Hill Principal Policy Officer Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability Water Systems Branch GPO Box 3889 SYDNEY NSW 2001

Dear Lee

Re: Current Plumbing Regulation Regime

Further to our recent telephone conversation, the following information is supplied as demonstratable examples of difficulties found by plumbing contractors in the overall regulation of plumbing in NSW.

Prior to detailing these examples, I should state that the Association is now aware that in 2005 the Local Government Act was amended and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 was enacted.

Schedule 1 – Part 2 – Standards for water supply, sewerage and stormwater drainage work – 15 – Compliance with Plumbing and Drainage Code of Practice states:

“Water supply work, sewerage work and stormwater drainage work must comply with the Plumbing and Drainage Code of Practice except where otherwise provided in the Act or this Regulation”.

This is obviously a very welcome change to the Local Government Act, but its promulgation and implementation at the local level based on recent experience by the plumbing industry is questionable. The simple fact is one of the recognition and acceptance of the Plumbing and Drainage Code of Practice in the eyes of the local building inspector who sees the Building Code of Australia

Mr Lee Hill – DEUS – 28 February, 2006 Page 2 of 8

as the definitive code to be complied with and where it is not definitive, a local interpretation is made.

The new Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 should change this, but only time will tell.

The four (4) main authorities for regulation of the plumbing industry as viewed by contractors are:

Sydney Water Local Government Council Plumbing and Drainage Code of Practice AS/NZS 3500

The simple reason for the above being viewed as “authorities” is that the contractor is required to sign off on the job via a Certificate of Compliance and lodge that Certificate with the appropriate water authority, e.g. Sydney Water etc.

Prior to issue of the Certificate of Compliance, an inspection process usually occurs and the work is basically signed-off as compliant and the Certificate is then forwarded to the customer and the water authority. The process is more agreement driven than regulatory compliance driven, i.e. local interpretation plays a role in the sign off process.

This can be demonstrated in the following examples:-

A Tempering Valves on Hot Water Services – Sydney Water has issued guidelines for the installation of tempering valves on new hot water service installations – if it is like-for-like with no modifications, a tempering valve is not required. If the service is relocated say from internal to external, a tempering valve is required, and if modification to pipe work takes place in say a bathroom renovation, a tempering valve is required.

On face value this seems a relatively simple interpretation, but in fact has created enormous confusion, especially for consumers. Lack of understanding, awareness or simply ignorance has led to complaints of overcharging based on a view of one plumber against another as to the interpretation of the Sydney Water guidelines. Less scrupulous contractors have undercut other quotes by deleting the cost of the tempering valve simply on the fact that the work will not be inspected and they can issue the Certificate of Compliance without complete impunity. Mandatory inspections of such work would resolve this conflict, but whilst such inspections are not mandatory, compliance to the regulatory regime is avoided. This is a major concern to the plumbing industry.


Our Blue Mountains Branch a couple of years ago reported that concern had been expressed at a Branch meeting by a plumber from Lithgow, who also worked in the mountains, that, he was concerned in relation to the interpretation of the fitting or non fitting of tempering values between the Sydney Water area and Lithgow Council. He understood and complied with the Sydney Water requirements but in the Lithgow area, inspectors were not accepting of their installation and in fact on several jobs had required them to be removed on the basis that they were not required or defined under the BCA.

Similarly, it has been reported to us that in the Tamworth area a similar situation occurs. Prior to the amalgamation of the Peel Shire and Tamworth City Councils, tempering valves were required in the Peel Shire but not in the Tamworth City Council area. On amalgamation one would have thought a uniform policy would have been adopted, but we are advised that this is not the case and the old arrangements prior to amalgamation remains the current practice. This example brings into question the application of the Code of Practice with the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

B Rainwater Tanks – Further to the above, there are many reports to the Association by members of the difficulties encountered where the plumbing contractor is referencing the Code of Practice and AS 3500 but the local Council inspector has a different interpretation on Council’s requirements – this is especially an issue in relation to rainwater tanks. This is best exemplified by the CUPDR Circular No 18 of 2003 in respect of rainwater tanks. The Director-General of the Department of Local Government when advising Councils of this Circular in a Circular to Councils No 03/32 of 23 October, 2003 – “Guidelines for Plumbing Associated with Rainwater Tanks……”.

The last paragraph of the letter to Councils demonstrates the concern the plumbing industry has with regard to the interpretation of the Code of Practice and such CUPDR Circulars and states:

“With these and any other issues arising from the implementation of CUPDR Circular P&D No 18, Councils should seek their own legal counsel as to the need for and appropriateness of measures to be included in their local approval policies”.


An obvious question posed by the above is:-

1. Will the same interpretation be made of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 – Schedule 1 – Clause 15?

And to further demonstrate the concern in this area, I have attached a letter to the Association from Blacktown City Council of 9 March, 2005 in relation to “charged systems” of stormwater. This matter was referred to the CUPDR by our representative, but demonstrates the continuing challenging of the Code of Practice as the single authority for plumbing and drainage in NSW.

The Association has recently raised with the Office of Fair Trading the issue of Minor Trades Licences for the Installation of Rainwater Tanks. These licences have been issued to non-plumbers who install rainwater tanks and limit the work to be undertaken to the installation only and not associated plumbing work. The concern here is that a licensed plumber is required to disconnect and re-connect the stormwater as per the Code of Practice and issue a Certificate of Compliance, which is required to receive a Sydney Water rebate. The holders of such licences are now seeking to undertake this licensed work. Such changes in the regulatory regime are a major concern to the Association as they lead to the breakdown in the protection of the public health of the community, a long founded platform of the industry and the exact reason the NSW Plumbing and Drainage Code of Practice exists in NSW.

The final example we would offer to suggest a non-compliance with the regulatory regime applying to the whole plumbing industry is a recent matter the Association took up with Sydney Water in relation to Sydney Water Amendment (Plumbing and Drainage Works) Regulation, 2004.

The Association wrote to Sydney Water on 18 July, 2005 on a range of issues including the following:-

“

The two issues raised here are of major concern to the Association’s members, with the last paragraph being a challenge to the regulatory regime in NSW.

Sydney Water responded on 4 November, 2005 as follows:-

“…………

In relation to the DIY Water Saving Kit supplied as part of the Pilot Program in the Illawarra, the components were integral parts of approved plumbing products, such as taps, and showers or met the requirements of the



“Manual of authorization procedure for plumbing and drainage products” (MP52). As the plumbing regulator, Sydney Water is able to authorise and approve plumbing products and in this case approved the components as acceptable for use within its area of responsibility”.

The Association believes the last paragraph from the Sydney Water letter flouts the need for compliance with regulation by all involved in the plumbing industry. When a regulator changes the rules to suit its own purposes and ignores the existing standards and need for Watermark compliance, what example does it set for the rest of the plumbing industry?

There is also a procedural matter that is of concern and that is the relationship between the Plumbing and Drainage Code of Practice and AS/NZS3500 and its updates. If the five-year review period is to be retained for the Code of Practice a mechanism needs to be implemented whereby changes in AS/NZS 3500 are considered, adopted and incorporated into the Code of Practice in an effective and efficient manner. This is not the case in the view of industry at the present time. The Code of Practice is the legislated authority, which unfortunately is not understood by all plumbers, and as such it should reflect somewhat instantly, changes in ASNZS 3500 as they occur. This is an important procedural matter to be considered.

As always, the Association would be happy to discuss any of the issues raised in this correspondence and is prepared to meet with you and others should this be deemed necessary.

Yours sincerely

Paul Naylor General Manager

Encls:

28 February, 2006 NIP-001

BY EXPRESS POST

Regulation Review Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal PO Box 290 QVB POST OFFICE SYDNEY NSW 1230

Dear Sir

Re: Investigation into the burden of regulation in NSW and improving regulatory efficiency

The Master Plumbers and Mechanical Contractors Association of NSW is a industrially registered union of employers representing plumbing contractors in NSW.

The Association would like to submit a Registration of Interest in the above Review with the contact person being the Association’s General Manager, Mr Paul Naylor, who can be contacted on:

Office: 87897000 Fax: 97497881 Mobile: 0417271219 Email: [email protected]

The main areas of interest in regulation for the Association as outlined in the IPART Issues Paper is the Regulation of Plumbing in NSW.

The Association is finalising at present a submission to the Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability at their request on “Current Plumbing Regulation Regime”.

mailto:[email protected]

IPART Regulation Review – 28 February, 2006 Page 2 of 2

The establishment of a single regulatory authority for the plumbing industry has been a long standing policy platform of the Association since the demise of the Building Services Corporation. The Association believes that a Plumbing Industry Regulatory Authority would bring to an end the multitude of regulatory regimes now controlling plumbing in NSW. The bodies that control/regulate plumbing in NSW are:-

Plumbing and Drainage Code of Practice NSW – Committee for Uniformity in Plumbing and Drainage Regulation (CUPDR) – Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability. Sydney Water Corporation. Hunter Water Corporation. Department of Local Government – Local Councils and Water Authorities.

The attached submission to the CUPDR – Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability details the extent to which control, interpretation and practice varies throughout NSW depending on the interpretation of the Plumbing and Drainage Code of Practice NSW at the local level of involvement with the plumbing contractor.

The Association apologises for the lateness of the submission but felt it important that IPART be made aware of the submission to the Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability in respect of plumbing regulation in NSW.

The Association is available to meet with the Tribunal at your convenience.

Yours sincerely

Paul Naylor General Manager

Attachment

Review of the Intergovernmental Agreement for ABCB and NCC Implementation

NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CODE

1. INTRODUCTION

The Master Plumbers and Mechanical Contractors Association of NSW is a registered union of employers representing plumbing contractors. The Association is registered as an industrial organization with the NSW Industrial Relations Commission and with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for both NSW and the ACT.

The Association is extremely active not only in the industrial relations environment, but in training through participation with the Construction and Property Services Industry Skills Council (CPSISC), Construction Industry Training Advisory Board (CITAB) NSW, Steering Committees for the National Plumbing and Services Training Advisory Group (NPSTAG) and its involvement in regulation through participation in Standards Australia Committees and the Committee for Uniformity in Plumbing and Drainage Regulation (CUPDR) in NSW, which has oversight of the NSW Code of Practice for Plumbing and Drainage Regulation.

The Allen Consulting Group Review Paper of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) of the Australian Building Codes Board details “the proposed approach for the National Construction Code (NCC) to be a consolidation of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) technical plumbing regulations, managed under the current model for management of the BCA (the ABCA model)”.

It is extremely important for the Association to state that it totally opposes this model on the grounds that whilst the Review Paper states that in dealing with the building regulation environment that is changing rapidly, the most immediate focus must be on the consolidation of the on-site construction standards within a National Construction Code (NCC). This implies that plumbing is in some way a sub-occupation of building and as such it is somewhat an easy marriage of convenience. This is not the case and is a process of applying a band aid solution, where a more detailed and definitive process of the incorporation of plumbing into a National Construction Code is required.

In a recent submission to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on Award Modernisation, the Association on behalf of the National Plumbing Associations Alliance made the following point:

“Plumbing occupies a special and distinct place within the Australian workforce. It is not a sub-occupation of building but a specialist trade responsible for the ongoing protection of the public health of the community. Plumbers working in Australia are required to be registered and licensed with the State in which they work. The association of plumbing with the preservation of good health is well documented – epidemics such as typhus, cholera and bubonic plaque have been traced by many researchers to poverty, ignorance and poor plumbing”

2


To consolidate technical plumbing regulations together into a consolidated BCA totally ignores the specialist trade nature of plumbing and will lead to a breakdown in the public health focus of plumbing, in what has been stated above as a band aid solution for on-site construction standards.

The simple fact is that there is a vast amount of plumbing work that is undertaken both pre and post construction which has as its primary focus the protection of public health and is totally divorced from the physical construction of a building, albeit that such structures also contain plumbing work that is separately regulated and requires certification, not by a builder, but a plumbing contractor. The pre construction plumbing work goes to the establishment of water and sewerage infrastructure provision to which the building will be connected, the asset protection of that infrastructure by an owner/regulator such as Sydney Water and all the compliance issues related to those assets in the protection of public health. Post-construction there is not only the regulation and maintenance of plumbing work and fixtures, but also the commissioning and testing of heated water controls, air conditioning systems and the monitoring and certification of water control devices (backflow protection) to protect contamination of the public assets of water and sewerage reticulation.

Examples of such post on-site construction plumbing work are the installation of low pressure sewer systems where a gravity reticulated sewer system does not currently exist. Locations where this is taking place in NSW are the Blue Mountains, Dangar Island/Brooklyn, Oakdale, Silverdale and Jamberoo on the South Coast of NSW.

The installation arrangements are a contractual arrangement between the public sewer provider being Sydney Water, and the contracting plumber to connect and upgrade existing residences to a new sewer system where in the past these residences relied on septic tank systems. No builder is involved and this work is being undertaken for the public health benefit of those residents.

Similarly, in health and aged care facilities there is constant upgrading, installation and commissioning of heated water controls and backflow prevention, post construction to meet national accreditation standards for such facilities. Again, no builder is involved and this work is undertaken as a direct contract between the plumbing contractor and the facility.

These are not issues for the BCA or the Australian Building Codes Board, but are issues specifically related to plumbing regulation and the protection of public health.

2. PROPOSED MODEL FOR THE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CODES

Accordingly, the Association is proposing a different structure for the management of the National Construction Code where the differentiation of building and plumbing codes remains separated in Stage 1 of the implementation of the National Construction Code and is similarly replicated as the process advances through to Stage 2 being Electrical

3


and Telecommunications. See Attachment “A” for the outline of the proposed structure of the National Construction Codes Board.

This model requires the IGA to be modified to reflect the establishment of a National Construction Codes Board, supported by a Secretariat to replace the current proposal of the Australian Building Codes Board maintaining the consolidated BCA whilst also progressing the objectives of the IGA.

Again we must emphasize that the ABCB model is totally unacceptable to the plumbing industry.

The structure of the National Construction Codes Board would be formed in compliance with Best Practice Regulation: A Guide to Ministerial Councils and Standards Setting Boards (COAG October, 2007).

The Secretariat servicing the NCC Board will have responsibility for servicing the needs of the NCC Board and the Industry Council structures underpinning the Board.

The Association is of the view that the staffing of the Secretariat needs to have governance expertise in servicing the NCC Board, along with the capacity and industry knowledge to balance the possible competing interests of the Industry Councils, both from a policy and operational perspective that they will need to co-ordinate.

The Secretariat will have responsibility for the publication of the BCA and the PCA, amendments and the circulation and promotion of the Codes to the industry at large.

The role of the Industry Council underpinning the specific Codes will be to consider variations, conformance and performance of the Code to meet the needs of industry. To achieve this outcome there will need to be a balance of representation for regulators, employers and manufacturers and this should be by way of equal representation.

The major benefit of this proposed model for the NCC Board is the very strategic approach it can take to the national regulation of construction. It will be able to apply influence at the national level to achieve consistency of implementation and administrative arrangements through the IGA, whilst also ensuring that specific implementation of the BCA and PCA have significant industry input and technical compliance is uniform across all Code areas. In achieving this, the outcomes of national regulatory reform can be achieved and hopefully, the regulatory burden of different jurisdictional practices will be reduced.

3. PLUMBING CODE OF AUSTRALIA (PCA)

The prime focus of a NCC will be to achieve uniform adoption of the PCA across Australia. The implementation of the IGA must action this process, as all previous efforts to achieve this uniform outcome have failed. It is fair to say that the lack of adoption of the PCA across Australia by individual jurisdictions has been the greatest

4


barrier to consistency in plumbing regulation and as such has had an impact on the mobility of plumbers and contractors, as well as creating significant cross-border difficulties for contractors working in different jurisdictions. Whilst harmonization is discussed at great lengths at such forums as the National Plumbing Regulators Forum (NPRF) the implementation of consistency in approach and adoption of national consistency is severely lacking.

By way of example, in NSW the Code of Practice for Plumbing and Drainage Regulation, July, 2006 version, goes to some 149 pages of variations and individual water supply authority requirements not contained in AS/NZS3500. This can only be described as technical installation requirements taken to the extreme where as the Plumbing Code of Australia sets out national performance based requirements for plumbing work. It is often the case that specific technical installation requirements are incapable of coping with rapidly changing requirements of the market, in respect of water saving policies and the like, and accordingly do not foster water and energy conservation, the encouragement of best practice, effective alternative solutions, which are some of the key objectives of the performance based Plumbing Code of Australia.

The Committee for Uniformity in Plumbing and Drainage Regulation (CUPDR) in NSW has formally agreed on the adoption of the Plumbing Codes of Australia, but as yet the NSW Government has not implemented that adoption, which is a significant impediment to national regulation of plumbing work. The IGA for the NCC needs to rectify this situation.

As an individual Association representing plumbing contractors and the Secretariat for the National Plumbing Associations Alliance (NPAA) representing the Master Plumbers Associations in Tasmania, ACT, NT, SA, WA and NSW, the NPAA and MPA NSW have a consistent philosophy in relation to national issues relating to plumbing, they are:-

A national consistency in plumbing regulation;

A national system of licensing of plumbers; and

A national consistency in plumbing training delivery.

The adoption of the Plumbing Code of Australia as the national benchmark for plumbing work is paramount in meeting the goals of the NPAA and MPA NSW.

The implementation under the National Construction Code of the adoption of the PCA with a Plumbing Industry Council advising the National Construction Code Board on the PCA is an imperative for the plumbing industry. In implementing this process it will be incumbent on the NCC Board and the Plumbing Industry Council to ensure compatibility with the Building Code of Australia (BCA), but without its incorporation into the BCA.

5


ISSUES FOR STAKEHOLDERS

The Review Paper requests specific answers to questions posed. The information and views outlined above proposes a different model to that proposed in the Review Paper. In doing so, the Association believes it has addressed questions 1,2,3,4,7,9,11 and 12.

The Association’s position on questions 5,6,8 and 10 are as follows:-

QUESTION 5 - If technical changes are required, can you provide examples of these. Do you consider that technical changes would impose costs to industry?

The technical changes required to implement the NCC go to the industry understanding and adoption of the PCA being performance based as against the current technical installation based methodology of the current NSW Code of Practice for Plumbing and Drainage Regulation. As with all change processes this will be a matter of industry education and communication. The recent example to the changes to the National Electrical Code and the roll out of these changes through industry briefings and seminars has been described by our counterpart organization the National and Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) as extremely time consuming, sometimes difficult, but an outstanding success. With the support of the NCC Board, the Association cannot see why the same result could not be achieved with the national adoption of the PCA. Obviously, these industry briefings will need to be a co-operative venture between the NCC Board and industry and appropriate funding would need to be made available to facilitate this process.

QUESTION 6 – Will the NCC deliver benefits to the plumbing industry (both within your State/Territory and nationally?) What form would these benefits take?

This issue has been addressed above, but needs to be reiterated again. The benefits would be:-

Consistency in national regulation, Provide easier mobility of plumbers and contractors, Resolve cross-border difficulties of multiple jurisdictional regulation, Provide internal uniformity within States/Territories. Assist in the co-ordination of national training delivery consistency.

QUESTION 8 – It is proposed that there would be a transition period for the implementation of the NCC, what is an appropriate length for a transition period?

In respect of a transition period for the implementation of the NCC, the Association believes this will be in the order of two years in which to implement to the legislative changes, then to communicate with the plumbing industry on firstly, the rationale for the change and secondly, to brief the industry on the impact of the changes that will be required to take effect. A implementation commencement date should be set as January, 2011.

6


QUESTION 10 – How should a new IGA supporting the NCC manage State and Territory variations to the new code? Should the current BCA approach to allowing variations based on particular geographical, geological or climatic factors be continued for the NCC?

The new IGA should initially establish the NCC Board and the Industry Councils. The Plumbing Industry Council could then co-ordinate, in conjunction with the NPRF a review of the individual State/Territory variations not consistent with the PCA and AS/NZS 3500 and set down a process to minimize those variations through incorporation into the AS/NZS 3500 and the PCA.

The outcome of this process would be to absolutely minimize variations, but acknowledge a need for specific variations based on geographical, geological or climate factors that apply in a particular jurisdiction. A degree of variation in unavoidable and reality dictates that this must be the case.

The Association wishes to express its appreciation for the invitation to submit its views on this extremely important proposal and should you require any further information or clarification on the issues raised, please do not hesitate to contact the Association’s General Manager on 02-87897000.

Paul Naylor General Manager Master Plumbers Association of NSW PO Box 42 LIDCOMBE NSW 1825

Phone: 02 87897000 Fax: 02 97497881 Email: [email protected]

3 December 2008

7

mailto:[email protected]

National Licensing System for Specified Occupations � 31 October, 2008

NATIONAL LICENSING SYSTEM FOR SPECIFIED OCCUPATIONS

REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT – OCTOBER, 2008

INTRODUCTION

This submission is made on behalf of the Master Plumbers and Mechanical Contractors Association of NSW, a registered union of employers with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and the NSW Industrial Relations Commission. The Association represents some 1,300 plumbing contractors and their employees.

It is important to state that the extremely short time frame given to respond to the Regulation Impact Statement requires that this submission will only deal with the pressing issues of the RIS prior to the COAG meeting of First Ministers on 17 November, 2008.

This submission will address the following:-

the structure of a National Licensing System the governance of a National Licensing Board compensation to all states and territories in respect of costs related to the introduction of a National Licensing System. the outcomes required by industry in the introduction of a National Licensing System.

THE STRUCTURE OF A NATIONAL LICENSING SYSTEM

The RIS proposes either a National Single Agency Model or a National Delegated Model.

In short, the National Delegated Model is nothing more than the existing eight regulatory regimes being over sighted by what could only be described as a token Board whose major role would be to oversight a national database of licensees. It is a “nothing changes” model and defeats the purpose of even contemplating a National Licensing System.

Arguments can be made that the National Delegated Model allows greater access to the regulators at the state and territory level by industry, but this is the failed system that operates at present and there can be no confidence that the system would change under the new proposal, even with the oversight of a National Board.

2


In 2006, COAG attempted to “harmonise” the licensing of plumbers across the country. The result of that exercise was nothing more than the individual state regulators defending their own existence, contrary to the view of industry. The outcome was a recognition matrix that has some 150+ nomenclatures for plumbers across all states and territories. The skepticism of the proposed delegated model is that this process will just be repeated again with no beneficial outcome for either contractors or the public. It will retain eight separate bureaucracies, which in many cases only reflect the work of each other and apply local jurisdictional interpretations on how licensing is administered.

That being said, and coming from the point of view that the current system does not reduce red tape for those who wish to operate across borders or in fact operate in different states and territories, the National Single Agency model must be the only model to take national licensing forward and create mobility, portability and reduce red tape.

The RIS details the cost/benefit issues that relate to both models and a salient point in that section of the RIS is that “a single national body would have a greater ability to ensure the consistency of information being provided to consumers and to business”, - Pages 21/22. Surely, if this is a genuine attempt to adopt a National Licensing System then this is the paramount driver for that change. Any arguments in respect of the retention of economies of scale and the avoidance of the costs of new infrastructure that can be obtained via a delegated agency model become secondary in importance when compared to the ability to ensure consistency of information that can be provided to consumers and business.

THE GOVERNANCE OF A NATIONAL LICENSING BOARD

The RIS is the original presented form details the structure of Board that this Association would view as acceptable. At the briefing session on the RIS in Sydney it was advised that this had been changed from four (4) industry and one (1) consumer representative to two (2) industry and two (2) consumer representatives.

This is totally unacceptable on the basis that the National Licensing proposal deals with the technical requirements, qualifications and costs associated with licensing, not the rights of the recipients of the services provided by the licence holders. No where in the RIS is their detail dealing with the issue of the removal of consumer legislation in individual states and territories resulting from the introduction of a National Licensing system. That being the case, there can be no justification for the reduction in industry representation on a national board dealing with licensing in favor of increased consumer representation.

Consumers still retain their representative structures on the individual state and territory government panels advising government on consumer issues and legislation, notwithstanding that a National Licensing System may be introduced.

3


COMPENSATION TO STATES AND TERRITORIES IN RESPECT OF COSTS RELATED TO THE INTRODUCTION OF A NATIONAL LICENSING SYSTEM

The adoption of a National Single Agency model for licensing may have costs not only for states and territories, but also for business and consumers. For the transition to be successful these costs must be minimized, absorbed by government and not transferred to the licensing system via increased licensing fees.

State and territory governments argue that they will loose revenue from licensing and any system of National Licensing must compensate them in this regard. There is no doubt that there will be winners and losers in the introduction of such a scheme, with the states and territories claiming that they are the biggest losers. But is this true? Licensing fees are paid by individuals and businesses and the Association receives constant complaints from members as to the value received from licensing fees paid to state and territory regulators. Licensing fees are often described as a tax by government, which provides little if any benefit to the taxpayer. A licence is an authority to be an individual to trade with consumers. The role of the licensing regulator is to police the process in a fair and equitable manner. The industry has a strong view that the system is balanced far too much toward the consumer as it is, thus justifying the rationale of the licence fee just being another tax on business.

The Association does not promote this as an argument for the non-payment of licensing fees, quite to the contrary, but the fee must value add to the business, without the over burden of additional red tape, which causes the frustration and anger as described above.

The cost burden placed on state and territory governments through the loss of individual licensing regimes may require compensation, but any such compensation must not add costs to licensing or provide in any way a process of an additional tax being imposed on contractors or licencees at the local level.

The balance here is one of what is good for the nation over and above the costs to individual states and territories.

THE OUTCOMES REQUIRED BY INDUSTRY IN THE INTRODUCTION OF A NATIONAL LICENSING SYSTEM

The failure of regulators to involve industry in a consultative process in respect of licensing is an enormous issue. This Association was outspoken at the Sydney consultation session on the RIS in respect of the comments made by a COAG speaker on a desired outcome of the National Licensing System being a greater role by regulators in the training outcomes of licensing.

4


Whilst those views were taken on board at the time, and will not be repeated again in this submission, the prospect of having regulators more involved in training outcomes is abhorrent.

In the recent discussions held on the Plumbing Training Package, industry had a unanimous and united view on the educational outcomes it required to be achieved from the proposed changes. The regulators were involved in the consultative process at state and territory level and once the package was adopted by industry it was submitted to the NQC. It was then that the regulators voiced their objection to the proposed changes. What value the consultative process?

The minimalist approach expressed especially by the consumer affairs based government regulators is simply a “dumbing down” philosophy, who many describe as a job protection methodology or justification of their own existence approach to training and licensing.

Having experienced that approach for so many years now the only real alternative is now to move to a single National Licensing Body.

In doing that the key outcomes required and these are intrinsically linked are:-

national licensing national industry regulation and, national uniformity in training delivery

The Association views the Plumbing Industry Commission (PIC) of Victoria as a model of licensing regulation that has merit, has a good reputation and has support from industry in Victoria. Unfortunately, this model is not mirrored in other states and territories and accordingly, there is constant disquiet in respect of decisions made without consultation with industry in those states and territories.

There would be merit in an examination of the PIC model in Victoria being used as a basis for all licensing across Australia. The practicalities of such an adoption is basically nil and thus there can be no support for the National Delegated model.

The National Single Agency model must be delivered to provide greater efficiency and uniformity in both service delivery, policy and administration in respect of licensing. This will be to the benefit of both consumers and business alike.

Paul Naylor General Manager - PH: (02) 87897000 - MOBILE: 0417 271 219

5

review of plumbing and drainage regulation - … · submission – review of plumbing and drainage...

Documents