Hi Wal

Just interested where the bio's came from for the new Board members?

No Wal - just interested.

Worker not all appointments are trade qualified - it is not required.  Remember this PGDB is not there FOR practitioners, they are there FOR the health and wellbeing of the consumer - they really are a consumer protection board. 

In all fairness I can understand why someone wouldn't put their name forward for the PGDB - because straight away you are harnessed, muzzled and become one of the "great unwashed" in the industry.  You are subject to a lot of legislation and can't always put the practitioners hat on when making decisions.  The biggest mistake we make as an industry is getting grumpy with the PGDB becasue they don't do what we want - they were never there to do what we want - it's just that in the past they were a lot more user friendly.  In the days when Wally Weaver was the registrar and Mac McIvor was there - they would give you some guidelines BEFORE things went astray.  You could run situations past them - and to the best of my knowledge accidents/incidents around plumbing and gasfitting were not high and members of the public were not being blown up or killed by dodgy plumbing and gasfitting.  There was a mutual respect between practitioner and regulator.  This mutual respect disappeared when the Singleton/Routhan era started and practitioners got a siege mentality.  As an industry we felt under assault - and the OAG report backs this feeling up - with decisions made without recourse to legislation etc.  Things needed to change - I'll admit that - the examination regime and the training regime were so far out of whack with each other for a start - but it is a chicken and egg scenario - which came first?  Did the exam system change so much that it moved away from what was being taught, or was it just one man's vision of how the industry should be?  Either way it's gotten so bad that I think it will take a generation of practitioners before things are back on an even keel.

Hi Robbo - that's a shame - because I agree with you - a few more people with an understanding of how things work in the "real world" would have been good.  I'm not sure what they use for criteria - I know that they phone interviewed some people - but I guess a lot of it will come down to who you know and what you've done.  Looking at the list that came out it seems they are looking for people this time around with a stratetic management background, but they also have to have a certain amount of practitioners.  I always admire people who are willing to put themselves forward to serve on any group or committee of any sort - it's easy to sit back and say how things should be, but not so easy to put yourself in the firing line.  It will be interesting to see what direction this new ship will head - there are a lot of broken fences to mend and a lot of trust to re-instate. 

Shame the MP didn't get back to you - but now your name will be floating around in the upper echolons of the power house - you never know you might get called on next time around!

Hi everyone

I also applied and had a telephone interview but my "no go" letter stated it wasn't a reflection on my skills, rather other candidates more closely fitted the requirements for the roles needed on the Board at this time.

I think perhaps it was more a case of having a voice about my views and that perhaps I upset the people in Turtle house. They might have also seen that I had ideas for change.

But never mind I'm sure there is something I can do from out here.  Make sure you read this weeks "Fellow Practitioners"  as your going to like what you see.

Keep talking


Wal