This week:

• A lot of responsibility has been placed on supervisors and supervisors are being held accountable more than ever - so where did all these responsibilities come from? We believe it all started around 1976 when two levels of registration were introduced, these being registered plumber, gasfitter and drainlayer and Craftsman plumber and gasfitter. Along with the inception of the Industry Training Organisations, the two systems reduced the standard of training and moved the emphasis of accountability on to the Craftsman, (now Certifiers), but didn’t provide those Craftsman with any additional training required to perform the necessary functions around supervision.
  
  Ignoring the industry has become second nature to the Board and Government and now most of their time is spent justifying their decisions and forcing implementation of their terms and conditions of licensing, policies and procedures.
  
  The complaint about Continuing Professional Development which was laid with the Ombudsman over 16 months ago is still on the go but we have been informed there will be a final opinion before Christmas.
  
  Only three months until its time renew our licenses so we ask if this is going to be a smooth process - or is there possibly going to be more protest action?

Linkback: https://www.plumbers.nz/fellow-practitioners-update/41/fellow-practitioner-issue-235-dated-5-december-2014/1808/

YES from me too

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?