Mutual Recognition (Equivalence of Motor Vehicle Repairer Occupations) Declaration 2015

The Declaration builds on a small set of statutory and administrative concepts from the Mutual Recognition framework. The primary legal concept is equivalence: an occupation that can only be carried on in the first State by a person with the registration set out in Column A is declared equivalent to the occupation that can only be carried on in the second State by a person with the registration set out in the relevant column for that second State (s 5(3)). The Schedule operationalises equivalence by pairing a "first State" registration (Column A) with the registration outcome in each "second State" (Columns B to I). The matrix is the administrative embodiment of that equivalence principle.

Several subsidiary concepts are explicit in the Schedule notes and the instrument text. "Registration shall be granted by the second jurisdiction in the terms specified provided the applicant possesses a valid registration in the equivalent occupation in the first jurisdiction" (Schedule A, Note 1). That sets a precondition for recognition, being possession of a valid first State registration. The Declaration also contemplates conditional replication, it provides that if the applicant's licence carries additional condition/s not reflected in the Schedule, the second State registration authority "shall recognise the primary licence in Column A and may, in issuing a licence, apply those additional conditions to directly replicate the conditions applying to the first jurisdiction licence" (Schedule A, Note 2). The use of "may" indicates a discretionary administrative power rather than a mandatory replication of conditions.

Scope limitations are explicit. Licences covered are those issued to natural persons, not to companies (Schedule A, Note 4). If a licence is not included in the Declaration, the relevant registration authority will decide recognition under other Mutual Recognition Act provisions (Schedule A, Note 3). The Schedule itself records many entries where the second State column reads "Not licensed in this jurisdiction"; those entries indicate that no directly comparable licensable occupation exists in that jurisdiction and so the pre-specified equivalence does not operate for those pairings.

The Schedule also cross-references statutory bases for licences: for example, it records that NSW licences in rows 1 to 8 were issued under the Motor Dealers and Repairers Act 2013, while rows 9 to 30 were issued under the repealed Motor Vehicle Repairs Act 1980 (Codes for Statutes). WA licences in the Schedule are issued under the Motor Vehicle Repairers Act 2003 (Codes for Statutes). The Declaration is therefore an administrative mapping between named licence titles and the legislative instruments under which they are issued.

Finally, the Declaration is presented as a living document: it expressly states it will be reviewed periodically and that updated Licence Recognition information will be published online (Schedule A, Note 5). That makes the Schedule the immediate source of binding equivalences, subject to subsequent ministerial updates.

The Declaration principally affects three categories of actors: (1) natural persons who hold one of the listed motor vehicle repairer licences in a first State and who seek registration to carry on the occupation in a second State; (2) State and Territory registration authorities that issue or grant the second State registration; and (3) the Ministers and administration responsible for making and updating these declarations under s 32 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (s 3 and signature block).

Natural persons: The Schedule is explicit that the licences covered are those "issued to natural persons, not licences issued to companies" (Schedule A, Note 4). Individuals who already hold a valid registration in the first State and whose licence appears in Column A of a row can expect registration in the second State in the terms specified in the relevant column, provided they meet the basic precondition of holding the valid original registration (Schedule A, Note 1). Examples in the Schedule show specific trades and restricted endorsements; for instance, an NSW Tradesperson Certificate - Motor Mechanic (row 2) is matched to WA Repairer’s Certificates for light and heavy vehicle work.

Registration authorities: The second State’s registration authority is the administrative decision maker for granting the registration outcome set out in the Schedule. The Declaration anticipates interaction with those authorities: it requires recognition of the primary licence and contemplates that the registration authority "may" apply additional conditions to replicate those that attach to the first State licence (Schedule A, Note 2). Where the Schedule does not list a licence, the decision rests with the authority under other provisions of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Schedule A, Note 3).

Ministers and central administrators: The instrument itself is made by Ministers under s 32 of the Act (s 3) and carries the signatures and dates for the Premiers that appear on the front page. It also anticipates ongoing administrative review and publication obligations, indicating an institutional responsibility to keep the Schedule accurate and up to date (Schedule A, Note 5).

Secondary affected parties include employers, recruiters, and clients who rely on the availability of interstate practitioners. The Schedule entries that state "Not licensed in this jurisdiction" signal that mobility via this declaration is not available where the second State does not licence the occupation at all, which has practical consequences for labour mobility and business planning.

The Declaration creates administrative duties and prescribes recognition outcomes rather than setting statutory offences. The principal duty created by the instrument is for the registration authority in the second State to grant registration "in the terms specified" where the applicant possesses a valid corresponding registration in the first State (Schedule A, Note 1). That is a right for the licence-holder to apply for registration with the expectation of the specified outcome, subject to the registration authority’s processes.

The Schedule clarifies certain administrative discretions and duties:

• Duty to recognise the primary licence: the Schedule requires that "the relevant registration authority in the second jurisdiction shall recognise the primary licence in Column A" (Schedule A, Note 2). This places an obligation on the second State authority to treat the first State licence as the starting point for recognition.

• Discretion on additional conditions: while the authority must recognise the primary licence, it is empowered to "may, in issuing a licence, apply those additional conditions to directly replicate the conditions applying to the first jurisdiction licence" (Schedule A, Note 2). The use of "may" indicates the authority has discretion to impose equivalent conditional restrictions, but it is not compelled by the Declaration to do so.

• Applicability limitation: licences not included in the Declaration are not covered by its pre-specified outcomes, and recognition for those licences is to be decided under other provisions of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Schedule A, Note 3). That allocates the decision-making power in those cases back to the standard Mutual Recognition processes and the registration authority.

• Scope constraint: the Declaration limits covered licences to those issued to natural persons, explicitly excluding company-held licences (Schedule A, Note 4). That is both a duty on authorities to confine treatment to natural persons and a limitation on the rights of corporate entities.

The Declaration does not itself set substantive professional standards, training requirements, or conditions of practice beyond mapping one jurisdiction’s licence title to another jurisdiction’s licence title. It does not create explicit civil or criminal penalties in the instrument text. Enforcement and the legal consequences of any non-compliance are therefore handled through the registration processes of the second State and, where applicable, under the other provisions of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (s 3; Schedule A, Note 3). Registration authorities retain operational control over issuance, including the application of conditions, and practitioners retain the right to apply for the prescribed registration outcome when their licence is included in the Schedule and remains valid.

The Declaration itself does not contain express penalty clauses or specify enforcement mechanisms in its text. It is an administrative declaration made under s 32 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (s 3), and the instrument limits itself to declaring equivalence outcomes in the Schedule and setting administrative expectations about recognition and replication of conditions (Schedule A, Notes 1 and 2). The Schedule explicitly directs that, where a licence is not included, the decision on licence recognition will be made by the relevant registration authority "in accordance with the other provisions of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992" (Schedule A, Note 3). That indicates that enforcement and dispute mechanisms relevant to recognition more generally remain those contained in the Mutual Recognition Act and the regulatory frameworks of the States and Territories, rather than in the Declaration itself.

Practical enforcement is therefore exercised through the registration authorities in each second State. Those authorities are the entities that will process applications, decide whether to impose additional conditions, and refuse or grant registration in the terms specified by the Schedule. The Declaration gives those authorities the duty to recognise the primary licence and the discretion to replicate additional conditions, but it does not specify sanctioning powers for non-compliance by the authority or a novel complaint mechanism in the Declaration text.

The instrument contains an administrative control on currency and accuracy: it states that this Declaration and any subsequent declarations will be reviewed periodically and that licence equivalence information will be published on the Licence Recognition website and the relevant licensing authorities’ websites (Schedule A, Note 5). That is an administrative transparency measure rather than an enforcement mechanism.

If a licence-holder or registration authority disputes an outcome, the Declaration points the parties back to the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 and State or Territory regulatory processes; however the Declaration does not itself catalogue appeal routes, remedies, or penalties. For those, interested parties must consult the Mutual Recognition Act and the relevant State or Territory legislation under which the specific licence is issued, as those statutes set out disciplinary regimes, appeals, and penalties for regulated occupations (see Codes for Statutes for the legislative bases referenced in the Schedule).

The Declaration is expressly made under section 32 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (s 3), and so operates within the federal mutual recognition framework. The Schedule cross-references State legislation as the statutory bases for licences. For NSW, licences listed in rows 1 to 8 are issued under the Motor Dealers and Repairers Act 2013 and licences in rows 9 to 30 were issued under the Motor Vehicle Repairs Act 1980, which was repealed on 1 December 2014 and replaced by the Motor Dealers and Repairers Act 2013 (Codes for Statutes). For Western Australia, the licences in that column are issued under the Motor Vehicle Repairers Act 2003 (Codes for Statutes). The Declaration therefore sits between the federal Mutual Recognition Act and State licensing statutes, operating as an administrative mapping that the registration authorities must respect where it applies.

Where a licence is not included in the Declaration the Schedule directs that recognition will be decided under the other provisions of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Schedule A, Note 3). That preserves the broader mutual recognition regime as the default mechanism for interstate licensing when a ministerial equivalence declaration does not predefine the outcome. The effect is that the Declaration supplements, and in respect of the listed licences takes precedence as the pre-agreed equivalence mapping, but it does not supplant the Mutual Recognition Act’s other mechanisms or State legislative regimes.

The Declaration also rescinds the ministerial declaration made on 14 August 2007 in relation to motor vehicle repairer occupations (F2007L02692) (s 4). That rescission changes the corpus of ministerial equivalence instruments; parties relying on the earlier declaration must look to this instrument for the current mapping. The instrument also references the Licence Recognition website as the public portal for updated information (Schedule A, Note 5), which indicates an intended information flow between federal declaration instruments and State/Territory licensing regimes.

Statutory interplay implications that the Schedule makes explicit include: the particular licence titles in the Schedule must be matched to the statutory licences in the State legislative codes listed; additional licence conditions that attach under the first State’s legislation may be replicated by the second State authority (Schedule A, Note 2); and the Declaration does not alter the fundamental licencing powers and standards set by the State legislation that actually issues the licences. In short, the Declaration is an administrative layer that coordinates recognition outcomes under the Mutual Recognition Act while leaving State statutory regimes and the Act’s other provisions intact.

The Declaration includes its own limited amendment and succession history within the instrument. It expressly rescinds an earlier ministerial declaration in relation to motor vehicle repairer occupations, identified as F2007L02692, which was made on 14 August 2007 (s 4). The 2015 Declaration thus replaces the 2007 instrument for its subject matter.

The front page records signatures and dates for the making Ministers: the Honourable Mike Baird MP, Premier of New South Wales, dated 28 September 2015, and the Honourable Colin Barnett MLA, Premier of Western Australia, dated 4 August 2015. The instrument states more generally that "We, the Ministers, make this declaration under section 32 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992" (opening paragraph and s 3). The Declaration commences on the day after registration on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (s 2), which is the standard commencement mechanism for disallowable instruments of this kind.

The Schedule includes a prospective administrative review mechanism: "This declaration and any subsequent declarations will be reviewed for accuracy periodically. The licence equivalence information contained in the updated declarations will be made available on the Licence Recognition website ... and the websites of the relevant licensing authorities" (Schedule A, Note 5). That sets out an expectation of periodic administrative amendment, and that any subsequent ministerial declarations will update the equivalence information there.

No formal amendment history beyond rescinding the 2007 declaration and the 2015 signatures is included in the instrument text provided. Any later amendments or replacement declarations would appear either as subsequent ministerial declarations or as updates posted via the Licence Recognition website referred to in Note 5. Practitioners and advisers should therefore treat the Schedule as the operative snapshot and check the Licence Recognition website and the relevant State licensing authority websites for more recent ministerial updates, consistent with the instrument’s own publication note.

The Declaration text supplied contains no references to litigation, court decisions, or judicial interpretation related to this instrument. It names no cases, and the Schedule and notes make no mention of legal challenges, appeals, or judicial reviews that have arisen from the 2015 Declaration or from the earlier 2007 declaration that it rescinds (s 4; Schedule A, Notes).

Given that ministerial declarations of equivalence under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 can become the subject of administrative challenge in other contexts, the absence of case references in the instrument means the instrument itself does not record any litigation history. If a reader requires information on whether any judicial proceedings have considered this Declaration or the administrative practices flowing from it, that will require targeted searches of decisions referring to the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, or enquiries to the registration authorities and the Federal Court or State Supreme Courts for contested matters arising from interstate licence recognition. The Declaration itself does not provide internal guidance as to dispute resolution mechanisms beyond returning parties to the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 and State registration authority processes (Schedule A, Note 3).

The Schedule and its notes contain several practical traps and constraints that affect the operation of the Declaration, and they are matters that advisers should flag to clients.

1. Limited coverage: The Declaration only applies to the licences listed in the Schedule. If a licence is not included in the Schedule, recognition is not automatic under this instrument and will be determined by the registration authority under the other provisions of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Schedule A, Note 3). Do not assume a licence is covered simply because it exists in both jurisdictions. Always check the Schedule entries.

2. Natural persons only: Covered licences are those "issued to natural persons, not licences issued to companies" (Schedule A, Note 4). Practitioners who operate through incorporated entities should not assume company-held licences are covered by the pre-agreed equivalences.

3. “Not licensed in this jurisdiction” entries: Many cells in the matrix explicitly state "Not licensed in this jurisdiction". Where that phrase appears, there is no corresponding licensable occupation in the second State and the pre-agreed equivalence cannot operate. For example, numerous NSW licence titles in the leftmost column map to WA licence titles, but many other second-State columns read "Not licensed in this jurisdiction", meaning no mutual recognition path is defined for those second States.

4. Replication of additional conditions is discretionary: Schedule A, Note 2 allows the authority in the second State to "may, in issuing a licence, apply those additional conditions" that attach to the first State licence. That discretion means an applicant may face replicated conditions or additional administrative requirements even though the primary licence is recognised. It is not an absolute right to have conditions replicated or removed.

5. Precise title matching required: The Schedule lists specific licence titles and restricted endorsements (for example, "Tradesperson Certificate - Motor Mechanic - Fixed Workshop & Mobile Workshop restricted to cylinder head reconditioning work" (row 11)). Applicants must ensure their licence title and restrictions align with the Schedule entry; small differences in title or restriction may result in the Declaration not applying and the application being considered under other mutual recognition provisions.

6. Statutory bases differ by row and jurisdiction: The Codes for Statutes note that NSW entries relate to two different legislative regimes (Motor Vehicle Repairs Act 1980 for older licences and Motor Dealers and Repairers Act 2013 for newer licences), and WA entries refer to the Motor Vehicle Repairers Act 2003. That matters for evidentiary proof and for interpreting what conditions attach. Do not assume uniform statutory standards across all entries.

7. Autogas installers excluded: The Schedule notes that Autogas Installers are covered in a separate Ministerial Declaration. Practitioners in that trade must consult the other declaration, not this one.

8. The instrument rescinds an earlier declaration: Section 4 rescinds the 2007 instrument. Parties who relied upon prior mappings should check for any substantive differences between the 2007 and 2015 schedules, as equivalence outcomes may have changed.

9. Administrative interpretation risk: The second State registration authority is the decision-maker for issuing the second State licence in the terms specified. The Schedule anticipates but does not circumscribe all administrative discretion. That leaves room for differing interpretations at the application stage.

10. Currency and reliance: The Declaration commences on the day after registration on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (s 2) and the Schedule anticipates periodic review and online publication (Schedule A, Note 5). Practitioners should not rely on a printed copy without checking the Licence Recognition website and the issuing authority’s website for updates or replacements.

If you advise a natural person who holds a listed licence and wants to practise in another State covered by the Schedule, the following compliance and procedural steps follow directly from the Declaration and its notes.

1. Confirm eligibility under the Schedule: Identify the exact Schedule row where the licence appears as the Column A first State licence. Verify that the second State you intend to practise in has a corresponding entry in that row that is not marked "Not licensed in this jurisdiction" (see Schedule and Schedule A, Note 1).

2. Maintain a valid first State registration: The precondition for the specified recognition outcome is possession of a valid registration in the first State. Ensure the licence is current and any conditions are recorded, because the second State authority will recognise the primary licence and may replicate additional conditions (Schedule A, Notes 1 and 2).

3. Prepare evidence linked to statutory basis: The Schedule identifies the statutory regimes under which licences are issued (Codes for Statutes). Gather documentary proof that the licence is issued under the relevant State statute and that the licence title and any restrictions exactly match the Schedule entry. Where the first State licence was issued under an earlier statute (for example, NSW licences issued under the repealed Motor Vehicle Repairs Act 1980 for certain rows), include proof of continuity of that registration under the successor statute if appropriate (Codes for Statutes).

4. Expect administrative processes and possible conditions: Lodge the application with the second State’s registration authority in accordance with that authority’s processes. Be prepared that the authority "may" apply additional conditions to replicate restrictions that attach to the first State licence (Schedule A, Note 2). Where a licence has extra conditions not shown in the Schedule, anticipate those might be reproduced.

5. Confirm natural person status: Ensure the licence is held by a natural person, as the Declaration excludes company-held licences (Schedule A, Note 4). If the occupation is practiced via an entity, separate regulatory steps will be required outside this Declaration.

6. Use the Licence Recognition website for updates: The Declaration directs that updated licence equivalence information will be published on the Licence Recognition website and relevant licensing authority websites (Schedule A, Note 5). Before relying on this Schedule, check those online sources for any more recent ministerial declarations or amendments.

7. Seek clarification where the Schedule is silent: If a licence is not included in the Schedule, recognition will be determined under other Mutual Recognition Act provisions (Schedule A, Note 3). In those situations consult the second State registration authority early, as processing under the general Mutual Recognition Act pathways may require different documentary standards and produce different outcomes.

8. Record keeping: Keep copies of the primary licence, evidence of identity, statutory basis, and details of any conditions attached. Where the second State authority replicates conditions, record the basis for the condition and any submission made to avoid or vary it.

9. Manage cross-border business arrangements carefully: If the intended practice involves work in jurisdictions where the Schedule shows "Not licensed in this jurisdiction", consider alternative compliance routes such as seeking recognition under other Mutual Recognition Act provisions or meeting the host jurisdiction’s licensing scheme requirements directly.

10. Legal recourse and enquiries: The Declaration itself does not set out appeal routes. If an applicant considers the second State registration authority has failed to act consistently with the Declaration, the immediate administrative remedy is to engage with the registration authority and, where necessary, to explore remedies available under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 and the administrative law framework. For precise dispute steps consult the Mutual Recognition Act and the second State’s licensing legislation.

Following the instrument’s own structure and the Schedule A notes will minimise the risk of a failed application, unexpected conditions, or reliance on an outdated mapping. Always verify the current Schedule on the Licence Recognition website before lodging an application, and confirm documentary standards with the receiving registration authority.