Stakeholders that supported this option for licensing did so because it provided the highest economic benefit and the Arctick license provides an existing national licensing system, with an established public register and requires licence holders to have the same or similar qualifications to those proposed under national licensing. Stakeholders who opposed this option for licensing did so because they felt this option did not recognise or address the risks (described at Attachment D) or health and safety requirements associated with the trade work in this industry. Many stakeholders stated the view that the Arctick licence was focused primarily on environmental protection objectives whereas state-based occupational licensing is concerned on health, safety and consumer protection. Concern was also expressed that the compliance and conduct regimes, including the imposing of penalties, under the Arctick licensing scheme was not as strong or as rigorous as current state licensing regimes and could result in risks to the consumer. Although other regulations are already in place, such as health and safety, dangerous goods, environmental and consumer regulations that would address these concerns, this is not perceived by industry stakeholders as adequate in addressing the risks in those jurisdictions that licence refrigeration and air-conditioning work. Conclusion No licensing (except for the Commonwealth Arctick licence), has been identified as the preferred option for the following reasons: Only three jurisdictions currently licence the refrigeration and air-conditioning occupation. This option represents the status quo in the five jurisdictions that do not license the refrigeration and air-conditioning occupation. No evidence was provided of market failure or any increased health and safety or consumer protection concerns in those jurisdictions. National licensing would provide a duplication in regulation. National licensing option model A The key elements of the alternative model, national licensing model A, are a revised version of that presented in the Consultation RIS, following analysis of the outcomes of the consultation and submission process. A comparison of these features compared with current licensing arrangements in each jurisdiction is provided at Attachment E. Licence categories The Consultation RIS proposed that the categories of licences and the corresponding scope of regulated work should be able to work effectively in current and future industry environments. Taking these elements into consideration and focusing on core areas of work assisted with the identification of the following proposed categories of licences under the alternative national licensing model A: refrigeration and air-conditioning licence refrigeration and air-conditioning contractor licence
Stakeholders that supported this option for licensing did so because it provided the highest economic benefit and the Arctick license provides an existing national licensing system, with an established public register and requires licence holders to have the same or similar qualifications to those proposed under national licensing. Stakeholders who opposed this option for licensing did so because they felt this option did not recognise or address the risks (described at Attachment D) or health and safety requirements associated with the trade work in this industry. Many stakeholders stated the view that the Arctick licence was focused primarily on environmental protection objectives whereas state-based occupational licensing is concerned on health, safety and consumer protection. Concern was also expressed that the compliance and conduct regimes, including the imposing of penalties, under the Arctick licensing scheme was not as strong or as rigorous as current state licensing regimes and could result in risks to the consumer. Although other regulations are already in place, such as health and safety, dangerous goods, environmental and consumer regulations that would address these concerns, this is not perceived by industry stakeholders as adequate in addressing the risks in those jurisdictions that licence refrigeration and air-conditioning work. Conclusion No licensing (except for the Commonwealth Arctick licence), has been identified as the preferred option for the following reasons: Only three jurisdictions currently licence the refrigeration and air-conditioning occupation. This option represents the status quo in the five jurisdictions that do not license the refrigeration and air-conditioning occupation. No evidence was provided of market failure or any increased health and safety or consumer protection concerns in those jurisdictions. National licensing would provide a duplication in regulation. National licensing option model A The key elements of the alternative model, national licensing model A, are a revised version of that presented in the Consultation RIS, following analysis of the outcomes of the consultation and submission process. A comparison of these features compared with current licensing arrangements in each jurisdiction is provided at Attachment E. Licence categories The Consultation RIS proposed that the categories of licences and the corresponding scope of regulated work should be able to work effectively in current and future industry environments. Taking these elements into consideration and focusing on core areas of work assisted with the identification of the following proposed categories of licences under the alternative national licensing model A: refrigeration and air-conditioning licence refrigeration and air-conditioning contractor licence
Final-Decision-RIS-RACM.docx