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

Author Topic: Fellow Practitioner Issue 136 18 January 2013  (Read 2719 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wal

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 572
  • Karma: +83/-0
Fellow Practitioner Issue 136 18 January 2013
« on: January 18, 2013, 03:37:32 AM »
Yesterday the Board’s latest Fees Gazette notice came into effect.  The Federation believe this notice, which is deemed to be a regulation, has been instituted in bad faith and purely as a means of ensuring the Board remains financial. The Board seem to have snubbed the advice of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Auditor General. 

It is a slap in the face to tradespeople working in our industry, it is “flipping the bird” to plumbers, gasfitters and Drainlayers throughout New Zealand, and it cannot be construed as anything but this, given the amount of information that has been made available to the Board about this “levy” which they call a fee, but for which we get NO goods and services in return. 

The Federation asks the Minister to fire the Board.

Linkback: https://www.plumbers.nz/fellow-practitioners-update/41/fellow-practitioner-issue-136-18-january-2013/1344/

Offline Jaxcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Karma: +40/-4
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 136 18 January 2013
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2013, 09:20:25 AM »
I think this Board are just calling everyone's bluff.  Of course member's of the public and unlicensed people carrying out plumbing, gasfitting or drainlaying need to be held to account for this.  If they do this work they are breaking the law.  So there is an irony here.  The Board it would appear are also not following the law of the land by collecting the Offences Fee - I thought the information provided by the Office of the Auditor General at the RRC hearing was reasonably clear - it is not a fee - no goods and services are given in return.  It is more akin to a levy - and the Act does not allow the Board to collect this.  The Act may be poor in its wording, it may have been ill conceived or rushed through Parliament or a million other things, but it clearly does not give the PGDB the power to collect this levy.  So we have a body breaking the law so that it can point the finger at others breaking the law.  Is this the worse kind of hypocrisy?   The Board need to fund these costs from within their budget without breaking the law.  And they, like the rest of us, need to then lobby Government when the Act comes up for Review.  Perhaps we could give them a few clues as to how to cut some of their costs so they could afford to carry out the functions required of them.  The first thing I would do is cull some of their legal department becasue clearly the advice they are providing isn't good.  They may also like to consider some pay cuts for senior staff - a shift to cheaper offices in a less central place.  Oh and before they mention how much the Federation is costing them in terms of resources answers OIA's and dealing with complaints to various Government bodies - if they did their job properly in the first place, if they followed the regulations and statutes - then they wouldn't be getting the complaints, they wouldn't be having to appear at RRC meetings, they wouldn't need to be responding to the Charities Commission or the Ombudsman or the OAG questions. 
Have you learned lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you?  Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed the passage with you?  (Walt Whitman 1819-1891)  American Poet

Offline robbo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Karma: +83/-7
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 136 18 January 2013
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2013, 10:08:37 AM »
hi guys, i bet the Federation`s letter to the minister will be answered with much orchestrated `SPIN`that seems to be the standard way that politicians answer inquiries/complaints, cheers

Offline robbo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Karma: +83/-7
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 136 18 January 2013
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2013, 11:24:34 AM »
Hi guys, Another brilliant `Practitioner issue` there is no doubt that the federation is a `Thorn in the side` of the board, which is run by members that equal or even better the board’s  members. The industry now has a team that shows exceptional investigation skills to make sure that tradesmen are treated fairly. Well done the Federation, cheers

Offline Watchdog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 214
  • Karma: +27/-1
  • Plumber gasfitter and drainlayer
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 136 18 January 2013
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2013, 11:35:15 AM »
Way to go Jaxcat get those claws out and let the Board have it. 

It's getting a bit like Star Trek where people are going where no ones gone before so I agree with Robbo that the Federation is doing great job. We need to help them so lets recruit one person each by the end of next week. What say you?

 


Offline robbo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Karma: +83/-7
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 136 18 January 2013
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2013, 01:55:09 PM »
hi guys,watchdog i wish all them board guys would be `Beamed Up`to another planet,cheers

Offline robbo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Karma: +83/-7
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 136 18 January 2013
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2013, 01:58:01 PM »
hi guys, The `board says` ”We are committed to improving our communication with the industry and are seeking to measure the level of satisfaction registered tradespeople have with the range of services that we provide.”

Surely this contradicts their other statement of` Some people seem to think that the Board is there to represent the interests of trade’s people and that the payment of the licence fee is akin to paying a membership subscription. That is simply not correct…. They go on to say that
Payment of the licence fee provides the authorization to undertake the restricted work of plumbing, gasfitting and drainlaying in much the same way as a driver’s license authorizes a person to drive. I bet board members would not want to apply and buy a drivers licence every year after attending rather expensive up-skilling courses.
“The good news for all tradespeople is that you will now pay less payless next year to relicense. In fact, this is the second year in a row that we have reduced the costs that a person has to pay to relicense”

The cost of the licence is not the problem; it is all the associated costs of being able to buy this licence!

“In 2013 the Board will go through a process of reaccrediting all the CPD courses to ensure that they have substance and add value for tradespeople and are not simply the “beer and sausage” functions that I have heard criticized (not that I object to a beer and a sausage)”.

Wal says `does this mean the processes and procedures that put these courses in place as a requirement for us to license failed? If some of the courses don’t meet the requirements, does it mean we are incompetent???  Absolutely not, I believe that what it means is that any courses that are `Free, will be outlawed and only money making courses run by associates of the board will be accepted.
cheers

Offline integrated

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 412
  • Karma: +37/-2
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 136 18 January 2013
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2013, 06:38:03 PM »
The Building and Housing Group will call for submissions from the Board and
the public - and that’s when we must be on our game. It is imperative we
have our say, and say it loud and with numbers. Recent events with the
Regulations Review Committee have shown that Master Plumbers are happy
to side with the Board whether right or wrong. We wonder what their grass
roots members think of this – were they even asked?




I found this point interesting - I don't recall being asked/consulted nor informed of the stance of this member group - I am writing a letter to pull my membership

Offline robbo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Karma: +83/-7
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 136 18 January 2013
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2013, 10:32:01 PM »
hi guys/Integrated, yes thats another $1000 you dont need to spend just to go to work, glad to see tradesmen thinking for themselves lately,cheers

Offline Jaxcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Karma: +40/-4
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 136 18 January 2013
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2013, 11:59:13 PM »
I don't remember being asked either.  And for the record its $1250.00

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
  • Karma: +222/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 136 18 January 2013
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2013, 11:51:19 AM »
and they shaft their own members....lovely people they are...

very expensive stickers for your van and that is all you can count on
You can't choose who you are.....but you are the sum of your choices.......


Share via digg Share via facebook Share via linkedin Share via twitter

Similar Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies / Views Last post
clip
Fellow Practitioner Issue 135 11 January 2013

Started by Wal

12 Replies
3809 Views
Last post January 15, 2013, 09:06:41 PM
by peasea
clip
Fellow Practitioner Issue 137 25 January 2013

Started by Wal

1 Replies
1104 Views
Last post January 26, 2013, 06:54:49 PM
by integrated
clip
Fellow Practitioner Issue 187 Dated 10 January 2014

Started by Wal

16 Replies
4208 Views
Last post January 19, 2014, 11:31:32 PM
by Badger
clip
Fellow Practitioner Issue 188 Dated 17 January 2014

Started by Wal

1 Replies
1457 Views
Last post January 17, 2014, 06:38:02 AM
by Badger
 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)