Australia, a vast land with no international land borders, is home to just 26 million people. That’s fewer than the populations of California or Texas in the United States and far less than England, which has more than 56 million residents. Astonishingly, even single regions like Uttar Pradesh in India have nearly ten times Australia’s population.
Despite these figures, agents in Australia face the peculiar requirement of obtaining separate licenses for each state or territory in which they operate. This fragmented approach seems at odds with the practicalities of working in a country with a small population and a uniform national identity.
If the work is fundamentally the same across the nation—whether you’re in Sydney, Melbourne, or Brisbane—why is the licensing process so unnecessarily complicated? Agents near state borders feel this burden acutely. Imagine an agent in Albury, New South Wales, who needs to follow a lead across the border into Wodonga, Victoria. Suddenly, they’re confronted with the need for a separate license simply to cross an invisible line on a map. The same problem occurs in Coolangatta and Tweed Heads, two towns that are literally within walking distance of each other but require different licenses because one is in Queensland and the other in New South Wales. The inconsistency is baffling. Agents perform the same tasks no matter where they are. Whether it’s skip tracing, conducting surveillance, or serving legal documents, the skills and ethical standards are universal. There’s no compelling reason why the licensing system should differ from state to state.
Precedents for National Licensing
We already have examples of national licensing across different sectors in Australia. If a person obtains a driver’s license in Queensland, they can still legally drive anywhere in the country. If a business is registered, it can trade across all states and territories without needing separate registrations. A marriage performed in one state is legally recognized in every other state.
The same logic should apply to the industry. National licensing isn’t an impossible concept; it just requires government cooperation—something that should be a fundamental role of governance.
How a National Licensing System Could Work
While there are many ways to implement national licensing, one possible model is:
- State-Based Entry: New entrants into the industry would first obtain a state-based license, valid for 12 months. This ensures that they gain foundational experience and operate within a regulated framework.
- Transition to National Licensing: After one year, a licensed agent would have the option to apply for a national license or selectively add individual states to their license. The ability to add services or expand a license already exists in most licensing systems, making this a natural extension of current procedures.
- Revenue Sharing Among States: One of the primary concerns for states is the revenue generated from licensing fees. A simple solution is that an agent applies for their license in the state where they reside, and that state collects the primary licensing fee. If the agent wants to expand their license to additional states, a fee (e.g., $50 per additional state) would be collected by their home state and distributed accordingly. Example: If an agent based in Queensland applies for a national license and adds New South Wales, QLD Fair Trading would process the application and collect the revenue. A portion of this fee (e.g., $50) would then be passed on to NSW licensing authorities.
- A National Licensing Database: A central system accessible by all states would track licensed agents, their approved jurisdictions, and any compliance issues. This would streamline the licensing process and ensure transparency across state lines.
Handling Complaints and Oversight
A national licensing system would also address regulatory concerns. If an agent is based in Queensland, conducts business in New South Wales, and has a complaint lodged against them with SLED (Security Licensing & Enforcement Directorate), the complaint would be recorded in the national database. The agent’s home state (Queensland in this case) would be responsible for investigating the complaint, using the information provided by NSW.
Preventing Bad Operators from Gaming the System
A national system would make it easier to enforce industry bans and prevent bad actors from exploiting loopholes. Currently, if an agent is banned from operating in one state, they can sometimes move to another state and apply for a new license. With a national framework, a ban in one state would apply nationwide, ensuring that unethical operators cannot simply relocate to circumvent disciplinary action.
Conclusion: The Need for Change
The current system is not just inconvenient—it’s inefficient, costly, and outdated. Agents should be able to operate wherever their cases take them without unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles. A national licensing system would reduce red tape, lower costs, and ensure consistent professional standards across Australia. Other countries have already embraced national licensing for similar industries. The United Kingdom and Canada have successfully unified licensing frameworks while accounting for regional differences. If they can do it, so can Australia.
While this may not be the perfect solution, it is just one possible solution and a starting point for discussion.
By discussing and reviewing alternative solutions, and by looking at how other countries like Canada and the UK have solved this problem, we can start to make a change for the better. So start the conversation, look at options, and weigh the benefits and downsides of a national license. There will be pros and cons to this, and we need to explore them all.