The Office of the Auditor General has put out their outline of the follow up inquiry into the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board and the narrow scope they will be following. They have stated they will not be re-visiting issues that have been investigated by other organisations but that doesn't mean they won't report on those findings.

The Board needs to make up its mind as to what they are, a Charity, a Statutory Board, A Consumer Protection Organisation or a Governance Board for the industry as some of the activities they are undertaking seem to indicate they are confused.

Do the work but don't charge them! It appears yet again the industry are supporting the activities of organisations making money out of us.



Linkback: https://www.plumbers.nz/fellow-practitioners-update/41/fellow-practitioner-issue-181-dated-15-november-2013/1576/

Badger you forget that it doesn't have to be leagal as the Board has the Minister and Government at their beck and call to change laws if the Board doesn't get it right.

It must be a great feeling of power for the Board to say "jump Maurice" and have him reply "how high and when do I come down".

There won't be a catering Budget as it will be classified as a cost arising out of investigations.

Perhaps the PGDB could take a leaf out of the Mayor of the Chch City Council's book and bring a cut lunch on those days.  Look I have no problem with people that are "working" away from home, such as Board member's will be when attending disciplinary hearings, getting catered for - but let's face it - when we are at work most of us might grab a gingernut or wine biscuit for smoko and have a sandwich for lunch - not muffins, cakes and pastries, or elaborate lunches.  They could get someone to pop to Pak n Save and get things from the bakery at a reasonable cost - but I bet they have a standing order with a catering firm at $XX per head.  What the policy should revolve around is reasonable costs - and I definitely think catering should include the defendant too - after all they have more honestly paid for it than any Board member present.

This gravy train has to stop -

What about the Board giving away our money by not charging profit making organisations for having their courses accredited to the Boards CPD scheme. The Board charge for other services why not this one.

I wonder if Master Plumbers complained to them as it would cost them a fortune to get all their courses re-accredited. Or perhaps the Board had a rush of the guilt's because the first assessments done where a total load of sh*t. How many hours work have been given away. From memory didn't the Board claim to have 400 or so courses on its list. Wasn't a normal accreditation cost around $200.00 and the accreditation only lasted 2 years. So on re-accreditations the Board could be giving away as much as $80,000 of income.  How much would that reduce our licensing?