Hi Everyone

Just letting you know the Business Committee has just announced that the debate on Mr Chauvel's disallowance notice of motion will be held after Question Time tomorrow. Question Time normally finishes around 3, sometimes earlier and sometimes later.

You can view the debate in real time on http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/SeeHear/PTV/ , or on Parliament TV (Sky channel 94, Freeview channel 22, or Telstra channel 94) or you can watch it anytime after it has been held on www.inthehouse.co.nz .

What could happen?  Well anything really – Parliament could decide to leave the motion as it is or they could alter the motion, they could put time limits on it or they could throw the entire lot out. 

Why has this happened?  In our opinion, we believe it is because certain groups have lobbied and submitted legal opinions to protect their patch without any real thought of the impact on trades people and it would also appear without the knowledge or support of a lot of members. Not breaking the law is obviously not on their list of high standards they are forever talking about.    There is a great deal of money tied up in this decision – suppliers and other trade organisations have built business models around upskilling and invested in some cases thousands of dollars.   Some suppliers will want compulsory upskilling with points so that you have to attend a sales pitch and pay for the privilege of it.  Other organisations have built entire business models around delivering compulsory upskilling.  We believe that this has more to do with protecting their investment than it does about investing in this industry’s future. 

What’s the impact if the motions don’t change? As an industry we continue on with the actions in place at the moment for debating about Continued Professional Development, being the industry work group being held in two weeks time, and meet the needs of the industry and the Board. The Board will review fees and discipline levies to make their actions legal.   The hoped for outcome, in fact the outcome that is vitally necessary is that all actions o the PGDB fall within that allowable under the 2006 Act.

What’s the impact if the motions do change? A huge step backwards. The process was in place, lead by the Board, for open debate and industry input with open minds to resolve the Continued Professional Development saga.  An opportunity for industry to meet and begin a process that would comply with the  2006 Act and that had across the board buy in.  All practitioners would have been given an opportunity to have input.  Those that don’t want change, to protect their self serving interests, will cause a new round of complaints and legal battles. The existing system has proved itself to be an expensive failure but they want to continue on with it to protect their patch. The Federation has attempted to “play nice” but if they want to use backdoor meetings, backed by politicians all we can say is the rules will change and it is an election year.  The can of worms is not completely shut yet.

What can you do?  It’s very late in the game but email or telephone your local MP and let them know how you feel and the ramifications if there are negative changes to the motions.


Linkback: https://www.plumbers.nz/fellow-practitioners-update/41/motion-to-dismiss-up-for-debate/642/

I agree TS I also think maybe Fair Go as they are generaly on the side of the under dog. Wal I also agree its time to take the gloves of and stop playing nice  :

Sorry guys, one block is never enough for me!  I also understand from a reliable source that the Aqualine course did not go through the ITO for checking.  So who makes the rules and who applies them?  Why aren't they the same for everyone.  If a supplier runs a night and teaches you something but no one pays anything - have practitioners learned anything?  Or does it only count when money changes hands (money from practitioners, or money from manufacturer's to the PGDB, or money from practitoners to Master Plumbers, or from suppliers sponsoring Master Plumber Courses).  One thing is very evident to me in this whole process and that is that unless money has changed hands at some point in the chain then it don't count as upskilling as far as the PGDB is concerned.

This is nothing short of a combined effort by those running this industry to fleece practitioners.  If they were truly concerned about upskilling rather than their own jobs and income streams (and for once I point the finger at the ITO who are cosying up to the PGDB in vetting the courses, Master Plumbers who are backing the PGDB over CPD to ensure their income stream from upskilling stays viable and suppliers who want to ensure that practitioners have to do compulsory upskilling so they have a captive market for their sponsored courses so they can convince you to buy their product).  Is there anything we can do - yes there is - but it requires action and unfortunately as a trade base we are not good at actually doing something - we do prefer in the main to see someone else do it for us - well not this time, this time individuals need to stand up and be counted.1.