Tribunal: Senior Member Donald Davies

The applicant requested the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) grant him a Queensland Building – Open Licence. At the time of the application, the applicant already held NSW and New Zealand building licenses. He requested the Queensland Licence on the basis of mutual recognition of his existing licenses.

The QBCC granted the licence with the condition that building work other than domestic building work was restricted to supervisory services, management services and administration services. The applicant applied to the AAT for a review of this decision seeking a licence without conditions.

In general terms, an individual is entitled to registration for an occupation in a jurisdiction by mutual recognition if the occupation is equivalent to the occupation the existing licence was issued for.[1] The primary issue for the AAT was whether the licenses were sufficiently equivalent. The test for equivalence relates to the activities to be carried out under each licence. The activities must be substantially the same.[2]

The AAT compared the activities authorised to be carried out under each of the licenses to determine their equivalence. The AAT found that the NSW licence was equivalent to the proposed Queensland Licence but the New Zealand Licence was not.

The AAT varied the decision under review granting the applicant a Building – Open Licence Class Contractor Grade with the condition that building work other than some types of domestic building work, was restricted to supervisory services, management services and administration services.

Read the full decision on AustLII.

 

[1] Section 17 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 and Section 16 of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997.

[2] Section 29 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 and Section 28 of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997.