Hairdressers Miscellaneous (Amendment) Bill

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 28 November 2000

Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council		Parliament Index 2000 Spring Sitting Index Browse by Subject Search all Democrats material About the SA Parliament Hansard on line

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: When the committee last considered this bill it was looking at amendments proposed by the Hon. Ian Gilfillan to remove from the bill the provision in relation to the discretion proposed to be given to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs to recognise alternative qualifications for someone wishing to enter the hairdressing industry. The Hon. Mr Gilfillan's argument is that that is an inappropriate discretion to give to the commissioner and instead there should be only one means by which a person can become entitled to practise hairdressing, and that is to satisfy the qualifications set out in the regulations.

It might be remembered that I indicated that that would militate against the flexibility which the Competition Policy Review Report recommended should be given because it takes into account, for example, that people from interstate and overseas, particularly those people from interstate who cannot benefit from the mutual recognition act, would need to satisfy all the requirements of the regulations as to the competencies which should be satisfied. I did identify quite a number of those-I think there were 14 of them, all divided into subcategories-and I said that, if they did not match those, they would not be eligible to practise.

I indicated at the time that I would endeavour to get some information about the responses, remembering that the review was advertised in the Advertiser newspaper in a prominent position and information was provided to a wide range of people. The only comments that were received came from Mr Renato Colombo, a spokesperson for a group of people who are not aligned with the Hair and Beauty Industry Association of South Australia. He wrote in his submission that he approved the proposed amendment to the definition which excluded the washing of hair. He queried the scope of the power of the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs to accept alternative qualifications, training and experience; but, once the operation of the scheme was explained, he was satisfied with the granting of this power to the commissioner.

A spokesman for Dial-A-Hairdresser submitted that he was happy with the entire bill. He considers that the removal of the terms `washing' and `massage' from the definition of `hairdressing' is a positive step, and he said that the granting of power to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs to accept alternative qualifications would be positive for the industry as it would allow in particular those holding overseas qualifications to enter the local industry and inject some different experiences and ways of working which would benefit both consumers and the industry. His only concern was what an employer should pay to an unqualified person to simply wash hair.

I also made some further inquiries about the regulatory position for hairdressing in other Australian states and territories. I am informed that a survey of regulation of the hairdressing industry across Australian jurisdictions indicates that there is a wide variety in scope and view. In New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania there are licensing or registration schemes for the occupation of hairdressing. In the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, Queensland and Victoria the practice of hairdressing is unregulated. However, premises from which hairdressing is practised are regulated.

Those who come from non-regulated jurisdictions and who wish to carry on their profession in South Australia will not be able to take advantage of the Mutual Recognition (South Australia) Act. Under mutual recognition legislation, mutual recognition applies to only those occupations that are registered or licensed. There is a certain logic in that. If the discretionary licensing power in the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, who is the licensing authority, is not included in the legislation, I would submit to members of the committee that a significant stumbling block is placed in the way of the creation of a national labour market where people can move freely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and that has some attendant costs.

The other jurisdictions in which hairdressers per se are regulated do have a discretionary power in the licensing authority to accept alternative sources of qualification-section 10(4) of the Hairdressers Registration Act 1975 of Tasmania, section 110(1) of the Factories, Shops and Industries Act 1962 of New South Wales, and section 12(1)(d) of the Hairdressers Registration Act 1946 of Western Australia-and they all give the licensing authority the sort of discretionary power which the government seeks to include in the act in relation to hairdressing in South Australia but a discretion which the Hon. Mr Gilfillan seeks to remove. I intimate very strong opposition to the Hon. Mr Gilfillan's amendment.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: To a certain extent I had predicted the observations made by the Attorney. Although this is a separate bill and a separate debate, the issue is the same, that is, whether the commissioner should have this unfettered discretion to choose the standard by which he or she will qualify a person to practise as a hairdresser. It is interesting to reflect on the usefulness of regulations. The Democrats and I are nervous about regulations going into legislation, because we like to see the law specifically spelt out and debated, with i's dotted and t's crossed in the parliament: we believe we are paid to do the job.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: From time to time we are. Regulations were referred to as subordinate legislation and in my view they are still a subordinate form of legislation to affect the activities of the community. However, they are extremely useful and flow through from the head act to give enabling provisions and spell out more detail than would be comfortable in a lot of legislation. They also have the advantage of being flexible and alterable, as we have seen. Ministers have incurred our criticism on several occasions for reintroducing regulations that have been disallowed by this place. That is a practice I do not support, but it emphasises my argument that regulations are not the locked in concrete, inflexible and impervious to change structure as the Attorney tends to portray them, but through the Legislative Review Committee they do have the advantage of being answerable to this parliament.

They also have the advantage of being available for public hearing so that, in this case, members of the profession or interested people, including the commissioner, can give their own direct evidence. I consider that to be far more desirable than just washing our hands of the detail and saying blithely that we will leave it all to the commissioner. If overseas qualifications are to be recognised, regulations are not incompetent to identify the circumstances in which overseas qualifications would be assessed and other checks or balances which may be required were spelt out to enable the commissioner to comply with the regulations before issuing the qualification. It seems to us to be very sensible and reasonable to include in the job of the commissioner that these are requirements that are put into regulation to conform with the act. I therefore urge the committee to support the amendment.

The Hon. T.G. CAMERON: Whilst I note the Hon. Mr Gilfillan's comments that this is the same situation as the moves by the government to alter the position for conveyancers, I would characterise it as similar. There is a great deal of difference between hairdressing and what a conveyancer does. I take the point that the principle might be the same, but there is a great deal of difference between what we may be required to include in regulations for a conveyancer and for a hairdresser. Has the Attorney notified the appropriate trade union of the changes and, if so, what is its attitude?

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The union is the Shop Distributive and Allied Trades Union. My advice is that it was not notified, and that is a default on the part of the government. An advertisement appeared in a prominent position in the Advertiser (and I do not have it in front of me), drawing attention to the fact that the issue was the subject of competition policy review. No feedback was received from that or any other organisation of employers or employees. The employers who responded were certainly not opposed to the proposition in the bill.

The Hon. T.G. CAMERON: Am I correct in assuming that you have received no correspondence from the union in relation to this matter?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: We certainly sought advice or comment from the union concerned. As previously outlined, concern was expressed, hence the initial request to bring back statistics after one year. But, as I have already said, we have now decided to support the Democrats' amendments. I note that the Attorney again talked about restriction on competition in relation to hair washing and massaging. As I indicated in my second reading contribution, the opposition certainly welcomes the lifting of those restrictions and we see that as a positive step. Although I understand that under the mutual recognition act we allow people from interstate to be registered in South Australia, I agree with the Hon. Ian Gilfillan that such discretion in relation to people from overseas or interstate can certainly be provided by regulation so, again, we support the Democrats' amendment.

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The Hon. Carmel Zollo has made a fair representation of the position. As I understand it, she said that the union had said that in 12 months' time it would like a report of who has been recognised under the discretionary power of the commissioner, and I gave a commitment that that would be done. Suddenly, the Hon. Mr Gilfillan brings in an amendment and the Labor Party decides it will support it.

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: This measure has two pages. It defines hairdressing (and now we are amending that) and it talks about prescribed qualifications. In the case of a person who was as at 30 June 1998 required to be registered under the repealed act, it means registration under that act on that day and in any other case it means qualifications declared by regulation to be prescribed qualifications. I do not agree with the Hon. Mr Gilfillan that you can deal with all the variables in relation to those who come from interstate and overseas. You can do it in relation to those who go to the appropriate institution in South Australia to obtain the prescribed qualifications, but that needs some flexibility.

We must remember that hairdressing is ultimately practised by individuals, the same as dentists, doctors and others-but of course different skills are required. Hairdressing is very much a personalised profession. All that the act provides is a form of negative licensing: an unqualified person who carries on the practice of hairdressing for fee or reward is guilty of an offence. The first offence attracts a $1 000 fine, and the second or subsequent offence, $4 000. A person who employs an unqualified person to carry on the practice of hairdressing is guilty of an offence, and the section does not prevent the employment by a qualified person of a person who is undertaking an apprenticeship in hairdressing. So, it is negative licensing. You are not even required to have a licence: you must have some qualifications.

Then, provided you have the qualifications, no one will do any checking unless there is a complaint, and that checking will be done by the Office of the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, remembering that in some other jurisdictions there is no registration or licensing of hairdressers at all. If there is, under mutual recognition they will not be able to get the benefit of the South Australian legislation, because there will be no flexibility by which they can have their alternative qualifications recognised.

What I said last time to the Hon. Carmel Zollo was that, if people come from Italy, France, the UK, Canada or other jurisdictions, they do not have any convictions and they are not bankrupt, although that is not a relevant consideration for hairdressing, and if they are competent hairdressers, why is it that their qualifications should not be recognised? It is all very well to say that regulations are flexible, but the fact is that we will not pass a new regulation every time another person comes to South Australia who does not quite fit within the qualifications laid down in the regulations and asks us to pass another regulation, given all the attendant bureaucracy that goes with that, so that we can recognise those qualifications. We are giving the commissioner a discretion, and I gave an undertaking to the Hon. Carmel Zollo that I would ensure that a report was available in 12 months about the numbers and the circumstances of those seeking to have their qualifications recognised by the alternative discretionary route.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Like the Hon. Ian Gilfillan, I indicate that the opposition does not see it as a problem to put in the regulations certain diplomas or certificates that are obtained overseas. We see it as an extra safety net, so we will be supporting the amendments.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Although statistically it is interesting to know what happens in other jurisdictions, I would like to think that South Australia has enough courage to take its own initiative, so although it is of interest it is not in my judgment determining in any way at all. However, we have an obligation to ensure that the public of South Australia is not exposed to so-called hairdressing from people who do not have adequate qualifications. It may not be on a parity with medical or dental services, but for a lot of people it is a very critical human service and I think it is irresponsible of us not to stipulate what conditions are required in the regulations for people to practise as hairdressers.

The Hon. T.G. CAMERON: I thank the Attorney for his answers to my questions and I am not persuaded by the arguments of the Hon. Carmel Zollo or the Hon. Ian Gilfillan on this matter. There are something like 200 countries in the world, and a country like America has 50 states, and they all have different qualifications, different courses, etc. I can imagine how big the document would be that detailed all of the regulations and all the various permeations-

The Hon. T.G. CAMERON: With respect, your interjections are palpable nonsense because you just do not know.

The Hon. T.G. CAMERON: The honourable member just does not know what are the extent of training programs and the range of qualifications for this industry around the world. Unless the honourable member is prepared to put something to that effect on the record in this place, he fails to win my support.

I think that the Attorney-General has been remiss in not notifying the appropriate trade union of variations to an act of parliament that governs its members, and one would have thought it should be a formality. I encourage the Attorney-General in future to ensure that as a matter of courtesy all relevant organisations are contacted, and that includes trade unions, even though some people on the Attorney's side of the fence might not think so.

I have just looked up the bills file and I understand that the Hairdressers (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill has been on the record for quite some time. The shop assistants' union, if it is the union that covers these people, has half a dozen operatives in here that could have brought it to its attention. There has been an absence of any formal notification or objection to the government and no-one has contacted me with any concern. Indeed, I would have thought that Don Farrell, the secretary of the SDA, had some appreciation that Trevor Crothers and I might have some influence on this matter, but to date I have not heard one peep out of Don Farrell or the SDA, and I have known the man for 30 years. I know that does not mean that he does not want to talk to me because I had lunch with him a couple of weeks ago, and he did not raise it at the lunch either, but there seems to be a little bit of fault all the way around.

The government should have notified the union. However, the union cannot hide behind that fact. I know that the union is aware of this bill and the amendment, and I am a little disappointed that nobody has sought to contact me on the matter. I can assure them that I would have listened but, in the absence of that, SA First will support the government.

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I accept the criticism made by the Hon. Mr Cameron. It is a fair comment about this bill and I will endeavour to ensure that there is appropriate consultation in the future when these issues are raised in the context of employees. I might say that, in relation to the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs, if it is any comfort to the Hon. Mr Cameron, under the Plumbers, Gas Fitters and Electricians Act, the Building Work Contractors Act and other occupational licensing legislation, I am authorised to establish advisory panels, and I can tell him that in relation to those areas of occupational licensing the unions are represented. Sometimes two unions are represented where they have different areas of representation.

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The plumbers, the gasfitters and the electricians are on the advisory panels and their views are taken into account when there are recommendations about aspects of the operation of those pieces of legislation. We are not completely ignorant of the need to involve representatives of employees through the trade union movement on those sorts of panels and groups. I thank the honourable member for his indication of support for the government's position.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: It is quite clear from the result of the division that my amendments would not be successful. They are contingent on each other, so it is not my intention to move the other parts of the amendment.