Hi Jax

Thanks for the link.  I've just read the article and the two comments and feel its all about accountability or should a say lack of it.

I ask the question "when do failures turn into corruption?"  There seems to have been a lot of issues over the period the OAG reported on and over the last four years there have been a whole new set of issues created by the Board. When are they going to report on those issues or do we have to complain to the OAG? 

hi guys, have a read of the OAG report i am sure you will find something in it that you can identify with, cheers
There are two specific additional steps that we recommend the Board take to help
it regain the trust of the industry. It should establish:
• a simple and effective complaints process for trades people who are unhappy
with a particular Board decision or action, so that there is an accessible and
transparent mechanism for getting a prompt review of a decision; and
• an immediate and short-term process for considering and resolving grievances
arising from previous Board decisions that may have wrongly disadvantaged a
tradesperson.
The Board has accepted these recommendations.
Only two(2) What about corruption, making a scapegoat of a tradesman by covering up for mates.

hi guys, have a look at this part:-
Part 8 – Fees and charges
 cheers

Dear Board........I am pretty sure the OAG wanted to stop doing the things mentioned below, to get better by not doing them, not get better at doing them.......by better I of course mean much much worse.

oh wait there it was well after the explosion, about a year after.....now that is ironic.

Addressing past grievances
9.37 As we discuss elsewhere in this report, we spoke with a large number of plumbers,
gasfitters, and drainlayers who had grievances with the Board. Many of these were
deeply held concerns.
9.38 We appreciate that most organisations receive complaints from people who
are simply unwilling to accept a decision that has gone against them. Not all
complaints have merit. However, in the Board’s situation, we consider it possible
that some grievances may be well founded, and that there are likely to be some
people who have been disadvantaged by poor or possibly unlawful decisionmaking.
The Board should not assume that people who have complained to it are
merely disaffected.
9.39 In our view, the Board needs to find a way to address these grievances. Where
they prove to be well founded, it should consider what can be done to put things
right, so far as possible. Some of the solutions may be very simple, such as
letting a person sit an examination again, waiving a fee for a reconsideration, or
reconsidering a licensing or supervision decision.
9.40 The appeal rights provided under both Acts are subject to limitations on when
proceedings can be filed. These are likely to have passed for all historic grievances,
and these rights will be unavailable. We do not consider that judicial review
proceedings are a feasible option for most of those affected, because of the cost
involved and time for the proceedings to be heard.
9.41 We are concerned that, if the Board does not acknowledge and resolve them,
these past grievances will continue to be discussed in the industry and will fester
as a source of discontent and distrust. The risk is that they will impede the Board’s
progress in rebuilding its reputation and the trust of the industry. The Board might
also otherwise find itself caught in a series of complex and time-consuming
arguments about the rights and wrongs of its past actions.
9.42 Again, there is the potential to send a powerful message about the new Board’s
willingness to hold itself to account and to deal openly and fairly with people, if
there is a systematic attempt to address the needs of people who may have been
wronged in the past.
9.43 The Board told us that it accepts that there is a need to address past grievances,
and that it has begun to talk with individuals with concerns about registration
on a case-by-case basis. The Board’s aim is to consider a workable way forward
for those people, but on the basis that appropriate standards for registration are
still met. The Board has told us that, where it is appropriate to apologise for past
treatment, it will do so.
112
Part 9 Our analysis of the problems and possible solutions
9.44 The Board told us that, where it has worked with individuals to date, it has
received positive feedback from the individuals.
9.45 We realise that the Board will not be able to solve all of these problems, or
address every perceived grievance. But we are very pleased with the steps that it
is taking to reconsider what has been done in the past and to apologise and look
for solutions where appropriate. Although these are individual cases, rather than
system-wide solutions, there is huge value in addressing them. We encourage the
Board to continue its efforts.
Recommendation 14
We recommend that the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board establish a
simple and effective complaints process for tradespeople who are unhappy with a
particular Board decision or action, so that there is an accessible and transparent
mechanism for getting a prompt review of a decision or action.
Recommendation 15
We recommend that the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board establish
an immediate and short-term process for considering and resolving grievances
arising from previous Board decisions that may have wrongly disadvantaged a
tradesperson.


AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......NOW THIS IS FUNNY

The OAG should consider that the explosion happened, 2009, this report was released 2010, and the my kangaroo court and cover up happened in 2011.........the Board, after receiving the OAG recommendations, flipped them the bird and carried on their merry corrupt way.