Cooper and Queensland Building and Construction Commission

The Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) was the respondent in a matter brought before the Tribunal by an applicant seeking a Nominee Supervisor’s Licence in the class of hydraulic services design. The applicant sought to rely on the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) and his accreditation as an Accredited Practitioner (Fire Safety) – Fire System Design in New South Wales to obtain this licence in Queensland. The core of the dispute concerned whether the applicant's New South Wales accreditation constituted an equivalent occupation to the Queensland licence, or if equivalence could be achieved through the imposition of conditions.

The Tribunal was required to determine three key legal issues. Firstly, whether the occupation of a hydraulic services design licensee in Queensland was equivalent to that of an Accredited Practitioner (Fire Safety) – Fire System Design in New South Wales for the purposes of section 17 of the Mutual Recognition Act. Secondly, if direct equivalence was not established, whether equivalence could be achieved by imposing conditions on the Queensland licence. Finally, the Tribunal had to decide whether, based on these determinations, the applicant should be granted the Nominee Supervisor’s Licence in the class of hydraulic services design in Queensland.

The Tribunal adopted a common-sense approach to assessing occupational equivalence, focusing on the requirements, authorisations, and limitations of the occupation in the first state and comparing them to the equivalent occupation in the second state. It was emphasised that the Mutual Recognition Act aims to allow legal entitlement to carry on an occupation in one state to be recognised as a like legal entitlement for an equivalent occupation in another. However, the Tribunal noted that this principle does not preclude a finding that no equivalent occupation exists. The critical inquiry is whether the statute under which registration is granted in the first state authorises the activities of the profession sought in the second state. In this instance, the Tribunal found that the New South Wales accreditation did not equate to registration for the specific profession of hydraulic services design under Queensland law, and therefore, the requirements of occupational equivalence under the Mutual Recognition Act were not met.