Here is a further submission sent to the Board by a supporter:

The PG&DB has invited participation in the  Board's latest consultation; "The Board is consulting on its proposal to prescribe by way of Gazette notices, that any tradesperson requested by the Board to participate in a competence review, must do so as a standard term and condition of a licence".

The Board has again misunderstood the mechanism specified within the Act.  The introductory statement is yet another example of the Board misconstruing  legal understandings,  the proposal would have turned what you call a "request",  into what becomes an "order" by the imposing of a term and condition of the type that the Board has self designed outside of the legislation.

Sections 53 and 54 of the legislation are "NOT" matters for consultation, they are simple to understand and apply when carried out as instructed by the Act in the way that the Act requires, (not the Board's regime).

I quote from the consultation document. "Registered people have generally co-operated with the Board when they have been asked to participate in a competence review but the Act does not contain a provision that expressly requires them to do so. There has already been a situation where the Board has not been able to enforce a requirement that a person about whom it had concerns undergo a competence review.

My response is that we were aware of how the Board was going about the review process and understood from the outset that it was wrong,  the person who refused to participate (known to us), took our advice and that is why the Board could not proceed with the review, as you found out the legislation does "NOT" support the Board's regime.   The fact that the Board could not conduct the review using their interpretation instead of the legislation should have been warning enough that the Board was wrong both in "understanding" and "application" of the legislation.

The section 32 document (attached), of the Board's considerations of section 32 principals in relation to the proposal to prescribe participation in competence reviews as a standard term and condition of a license, is an absolute nonsense in the analogy presented by the Board. Additionally section 32 itself specifies that matters contained within that section pertain to sections 28 and 30,  it has nothing to do directly with sections 53 and 54 as the Board would like others to believe.

I have no idea who is advising the Board, but "one cannot consult on an unrelated matter, with intent to apply that matter, so as to over ride the intent of another specified piece of legislation within the same Act",  then hide behind the argument that the Board "consulted".  This is a continuation and another example of the Board attempting to grant itself power outside of the legislation with no legal understanding of what it is doing.

What is the correct method of a review as Parliament has legislated?  Well Max ask your lawyers, you have four on the staff and one or two on the Board.  If they do not know then my advice is the same as in the past, withdraw forthwith the consultation proposal document,  and in your position as Registrar guide the Board towards operating as the legislation is written, not as they think, its that simple.

Finally Max - We both know without saying what the outcome will entail,  better to pull out now than be instructed to do so later. There is nothing to be gained by mimicking the Minister and claiming yet another fault in another part of the Act, when there is nothing wrong with the Act if you understand it, and you should, as you well know from your accounts, the Board has spent (WASTED)  almost half a million dollars of Tradespeople's money trying to understand the legislation at last count.  Plumbers are happy to advise (the PG&DB) for free,  when you're ready - which would be a far better way to work with industry.