Plumbers NZ | Plumbing, Gasfitting and Drainage Community

Support => Fellow Practitioners Update => Topic started by: Wal on December 05, 2014, 06:39:15 AM

Plumbers NZ is New Zealand's largest online plumbing, gas and drainage resource. Plumbing exam help, plumbing news, directory and free quotes.

Title: Fellow Practitioner Issue 235 Dated 5 December 2014
Post by: Wal on December 05, 2014, 06:39:15 AM
This week:


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 235 Dated 5 December 2014
Post by: robbo on December 05, 2014, 08:17:36 AM
hi guys, ...Perhaps injunction action should be taken regarding licensing and CPD. That would require going to court and getting a court order requiring the Board to refrain from doing a particular act, or to do a particular act. Anything is possible but we have to make it happen. What do you think –are you willing to put your hand in your pocket to contribute to the cost of an injunction? that's a YES from me,cheers

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 235 Dated 5 December 2014
Post by: Jaxcat on December 08, 2014, 06:38:08 AM
YES from me too
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 235 Dated 5 December 2014
Post by: aboutgas on December 08, 2014, 03:51:34 PM
Yes as well
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 235 Dated 5 December 2014
Post by: Kern Uren on December 09, 2014, 03:57:02 PM
Hi Guys
I think that the best approach this time round that would gain traction is to challenge the costs incurred for the application of an exemption to undertake sanitary plumbing, gasfitting or drainlaying under sections 19, 21 and 25 of the PGD Act 2006. My understanding of this particular piece of legislation is that is mirrors that which existed in the Electricity Act where a registered electrician could nominate someone as exempt without there being a cost incurred. This does not avoid the responsibility for the electrician to discharge their responsibility appropriately with supervision and direction regarding the restricted work being undertaken. This unfair cost was called into question as early as 2009 with the Auditor Generals report and subsequently highlighted in their follow up report this year.

The Board and indeed MBIE are aware of the illegitimacy of this cost and I am sure that if enough tradespeople complained that this unnecessary cost would be scrapped.

Certainly the senior counsel of the PGD Board is aware of the illegitimacy of the cost and requirement to make application but the current Registrar chooses to avoid the matter as he is aware that significant income will be lost if he does not have access to these funds. Why he needs these funds is beyond me as there is little or no work required by the Board to administer this area and as we all know exempted people are not subject to the same legal accountability which lies with the Certifier supervising them.

Just a thought?





Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 235 Dated 5 December 2014
Post by: Jaxcat on December 10, 2014, 09:43:07 AM
An excellent suggestion Kern - I have often wondered exactly what costs were incurred in processing an exemption and how this was justified.  It seems morally corrupt for the Board to be charging for something they know is not strictly legal.  I sit here and wonder why the Minister allows the Board to carry on in this way?  How does the accountability agreement work in circumstances such as this.

All the same I think the suggestion you make is great, and perhaps a concerted effort of letter writing (with the Minister CC'd in on it) is well worth doing prior to the new licensing year. (Perhaps late January is as good a time as any - after the Christmas close down, but well before licensing).