Hi everyone

The income in 2010 was around $820,000.00.  There was around $250,000.00 attributed to gas audits.

Other figures I have indicate the total for gas certificate administration was estimated to be $722,118.00. That was based on one staff member with an overhead allocation of $115,982.00. $400,000.00 was allocated for gas audits and $120,720.10 for wages.

Hope this helps

Wal

it would suit the Board immensely to ditch the gas cert system that is full of inconsistencies and mistakes.

I asked to see 150 certs on an OIA request, they said they had lost about 20-40 paper copies( JUST after claiming to keep them indefinitely), and had never received some others, even though electronic copies were on their system of these "never received copies".

When went to the local gas suppliers and I photographed the gas suppliers copies OF THESE MISSING CERTS, and told them I had......they miraculously reappeared, except a few. These received certs had been claimed to have been filled in correctly by a legal rep for the board.

11 of them had the TEST RESULTS empty, with bloody highlighter on the missing info.....one like this was for the last work done at the chip shop that exploded and nearly killed some one.

I did laugh when some one said either cut the standard of service or up the fees to cover the loss of this lucrative income...well as the service could not get any worse....they gotta up the fees.

If you found copies with highlighting on them I would suggest that goes back to the old days when the Board employed a couple of auditors on staff.  They used to physically check EVERY CERT that came in to the office.  They had a template that they made up themselves with cardboard which they cut out and put over the certs to show where everything should be filled in.  If there was an omission then you got the pink cert posted back to you with the highlighter on to fill in the blanks, change your own copy and it was your responsibility to change the energy suppliers and customer's copy.  You then sent back your cert to the PGDB.  This was in the days when they gave you a chance and realised that sometimes you may have posted in error etc.  I am sure that if a guy sent in numerous of these he went higher up the list for auditing.  Many of you will remember that you had regular visits from Mr McIvor, who would meet you on a job randomly selected and go over it.  This system worked well.  I am presuming Badger that the certificates you speak of are older ones?  I imagine they got posted back to the certifier and were never filled in properly and re-sent.  I am also taking a leap here and assuming that these might be certs signed off in your name by a former employer, when in fact you never actually signed them off?

Integrated - you are not niave - just trusting - which I used to be but now I am cynical.

No guys these were entered and kept on record as the papercopy, the gas suppliers copies reflect this, as do the Boards copy when I requested them, 11 out of 150 is a huge %, from a batch I have been complaining about since 2003, bought in my name by my old boss the day after I told him to shove his job up his arse, all with the blessing of Uren and Hammond AND CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RETURNED AND CORRECTLY FILLED IN....TWICE IN WRITTING BY THE BAORD'S LAWYER.

Of note:
At the exploding chipshop, the second work done, totally unconnected to me(done a year after I left) had the test results not filled in, and the Board in writting claimed it was never returned.....but there is an electronic copy on their site!!!!

Mr Bickers may have refered to me as destructive for pointing this out, I would have thought it constructive to have this sort of stuff highlighted......unless you are trying to cover it up and then disbanned it because the system has been totally fecked up.

There really is a lot more.....we need a public enquiry, but to get that we need numbers and lots of letters to MPs and the ombudsman.

yeah see thats a pretty good point there jax - whats to stop a former employer using your reg number details etc and continue gasfitting work without your knowledge - all they would need would be a reg number and they could fabricate the rest

Actually Robbo I have to disagree with you there about MP putting pressure on the Board over supervision.  MP has recently run a Quality Assurance audit of members (or at least they are progressing through the country running it) and one of the areas they focus on is how you supervise your staff - you need to provide them with a list of employees, their registration numbers and their licences and they are all checked and verified from the PGDB website.  You need to go through with them just how staff are supervised.  It doesn't seem to me to be in MP interests to not have staff supervised.  You know there is a misconception that just because an employer you are trying to A) rip off your staff b) rip off the system or c) do both.   While it may be true in some cases it certainly is not a general rule.  As an employer it is not in my interests to have staff unsupervised - I need jobs done properly, I need them done competently and our company's reputation is only as good as the last job any of my staff have done.  I want properly trained apprentices who will become good tradesmen/women who will then train good apprentices etc - this is how you grow your business.  I do not put apprentices in vans by themselves until year 4 (if they are exceptional - or perhaps an adult apprentice with years behind him, or another trade) - or else they don't go out until they are fully qualified.  I appreciate that if we did heaps of domestic work rather than a smaller portion fo domestic and larger commercial, then I might have to re-think.  I would hate readers of this forum to think that all employers are looking for short cuts - in the end it is often them that will suffer the financial consquences of breaking the rules.  MP too does stand for maintaining industry standards and would never lobby the PGDB to soften supervision.  They may pressure them to define it better - but I can't say whether they have or not.  I too read this policy and wondered when skyping, or taking photos on your cell phone of testing and emailing them to a supervisor will be acceptable.  Time will tell.  Obviously superivison from overseas while on a long holiday will not be ok!!

Actually Robbo I don't agree that having a supervisor a hour away is acceptable.  Direct supervision means just that - I believe the supervisor should be within eyesight or earshot of the apprentice they are supervising, or the exemption holder.  To be honest I'm not a big fan of exemptions - unless it is used in the case where an apprentice has become registered in one trade and has completed their apprenticeship but has yet to pass the examination in the other trade.  I believe that people who take on apprentices should have to prove to the ITO that they do not intend to cast the apprentice aside in a van at the earliest opportunity.  I have a been with my competitors who do not provide adequate supervision because I can never meet them on price - they will obviously be much cheaper - until such time as that unsupervised and person buggers something up.  I also believe that when you sign up a trainee - you sign up to an obligation to train - and to train means that someone must be there teaching them - it doesn't mean giving them a phone, putting them in a van and telling them to call you if they don't understand.  I think the policy on supervision has been watered down, but again I don't believe MP would have been behind it.  The reality for the Board is that there are insufficient Certifiers - why?  Because there is no continuation of study from an apprenticeship, for a lot there is no enticement financially between what they are being paid as a licensed person and what they might earn as a certifier, and many simply do not want to take on the responsibility that comes with being a certifier. I believe that the ITO should monitor the ratio of tradespeople to apprentices and if they do not believe there are enough tradespeople then a company should not be able to sign up another apprentice.   And just for the record - I am dead against supervisors that do not work for the same company as the person they are supervising - how the hell does that work??

I totally agree the cert system needs to be maintained, preferably with handwritten signed copies kept by a competent/honest third party and a copy kept by the gas supplier....its bloody gas for Christ sake. It will only become apparent there is a problem AFTER you have an incident and yes someone like my old boss will have a field day when the Board wash their hands of the responsibility of the gas certs.

It is the hypocrisy and lies that get me...oh and the incompetence.

At least it is now clear why they occupy a large glass building...... it is to accommodate all the window lickers.