Here is an excerpt from my submission to the select committee.... apparently there is no problem in someone ordering books of certs in your name, with out your knowledge......why would someone do that?

Bare in mind the "impartial" investigator had lobbied heavily too for the self cert system, see attached. Now how would a person look if they lobbied for the self cert system and deregulation, empowered a guy with his full licence.....that later "didn't register" a cert for the last work.....AT THE SITE ON AN EXPLOSION......I reckon he would look a bit of a cock.



1.   On 10 November 2003, I attended a meeting with the Manager. At this meeting, I submitted a written statement outlining my safety concerns; this written statement was later provided to the Board and appears in my Hearing’s Bundle (HB).

2.   On 13 November 2003, I was issued with a written warning by the manager for how I had expressed my concerns about safety to his son in law, (HB). In response to this written warning I indicated I would resign as soon as was practicable.

3.   On 14 November 2003, four books of non-transferable gas certificates were ordered, for the one and only time, by some one at the gas company. It was done in my name, without my knowledge, (HB).

4.   On 19 November 2003, I gave two weeks notice and resigned from this gas company, (HB).

5.   I later found out, after the explosion, that on the 4th March 2004, three months after I left, someone from this gas company, on this company’s letterhead, wrote a letter in my name to alter a gas certificate to the PGDB, which was apparently acted on, (HB).

On the last page the sum is made out for just 250 bucks and the quantity has been altered.....

God I bet they miss being able to charge 1000 dollars for four books of certs.

There is something that has always niggled me about this form, attached, if you look at the top it was faxed on the 14th, the certs were sent on the 17th.......wouldn't the additions/alterations have been done at the Board, perhaps after a phone call?, if you write up a form and make a mistake, then you just throw it away and start again.....but if it been received, sent by fax.....how do you alter/add stuff?

......and what's with the ordering of one book then another three books?


Apparently all this is normal....really? because to me it looks dodgy.......

This is why these certs have the paper copy I am not mentioned.....but the system shows it as me.......this is why it is not ok to buy certs in someone else's name with out them knowing that your ordering them, especially if they have told you to shove your job up your arse.....

But Mr Hammond thinks its ok......starting to see the trend......

Fit and proper, unreasonable people.......perhaps a mirror might help Maxy Boy.....go have a hard look.....

Here's some irony for you, a Board news letter the month before the explosion, remember the cert not registered, the altering of the whole gas install, from the lowering of the pipe, the addition of the pizza oven, and the altering of the gas supply set up.....talk about one rule for one and one rule for others......is this reasonable?


Tony Hammond, is the investigator and have a look at Mr Parker, in the newsletter attached.


Replacement for
Gas Appliances –
Tony Hammond
The Gas Regulations (REG 24) define, amongst others, that the
following require certification:
Extensions, additions and replacements to existing gas installations
Alterations that result in repositioning of pipework or changes to the
operation of the installation
It is worth noting that an installation is defined in the Gas Act as
“including a gas appliance”.
Therefore, replacement of one appliance by another, even if very
similar, requires certification.
Further weight is added to the argument when one considers that
even a “like for like” replacement needs to be adjusted to ensure
gas pressure and aeration are set appropriately, the connections are
gastightness and the safety devices operate at the right levels; that
is, the appliance needs to be commissioned in accordance with clause
1.6.7 of NZS 5261.

so how well do the investigator and the chair of my kangaroo court know each other....compare this to their statement from the impartiality hearing......is this reasonable?