To All copied in,

 

I thank you for your consideration and time reading why I will not fund a corrupt and vindictive Plumber’s Board any further.

 

I ask you, what would you do if you were victimised and had your wife terrorised like this? I am at my wits end……please, just let me know when the Law doesn’t apply any more, and I will make other arrangements.

 

Do we have differing laws for each of us, different levels of entitlement?

 

I have a wealth of evidence to back my claims and assure you that I do not do this lightly.

 

Five years ago, this April, a man nearly died in an explosion, if it had happened just one hour earlier, the chip shop would have been surrounded by school kids. I had warned about dodgy certs covering dodgy work for 6 years before the explosion. I have lost my home, business and had my character assassinated by lies and corruption. My first letter of concern to the Board was in 2003, the explosion happened in 2009.

 

Thank you for your time, Paul Gee.

 

 

(Hi Fenella and Peter, please can I add this to my Select Committee submissions, thank you)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Max,

 

As you are well aware I was subjected to a flawed and biased hearing, where according to your own website and written under my personal details, for all to see -
 

 

     On 3, 4 and 5 May 2011, the Board convened to consider disciplinary charges against Paul Gee. Having found a disciplinary charge proven, the Board, by decision dated 4 November 2011, ordered Mr Gee to successfully complete a specified competence course. On 11 and 12 March 2013, Mr Gee successfully completed the required assessment. (my emphasis).

 

 

A disciplinary charge was not proven, no proof was provided, it was totally based on the testimony and opinion of just one person and on the ignorance of the Board to alternatives to the non mandatory part 2 of NZ 5261. For this I contest my license fee.
 

 

This “one person’s opinion” was that of Tony Hammond the so called “impartial” investigator. Mr Hammond had huge bias and massive conflicts of interest. He was aided by Stephen Parker, who also had huge bias and conflicts of interest. Mr Parker, the chair of my hearing, stopped the hearing before we could cross examine Mr Hammond on this specific so called “proven” charge; also Mr Hammond also had a long history with Mr Bickers present at my hearing and became the Chair of the Board not long after. All I am “guilty” of is that I used a viable alternative to a non mandatory part of the NZ 5261, it is standard practice.
 

 

I produced this alternative at the hearing, even drawing diagrams to show my understanding. I have since produced yet more actual proof with a British Standard used by nearly 70 million people in the UK that actually does prove this job to be safe, what I did was right and his “opinion” is wrong. This proof far out weighs his opinion hands down. This very real and relevant legal document which has been utilised by nearly 70 million people for over 14 years far out weighs the opinion and testimony of just one man, one man with a huge vested interest in the out come of a hearing overseen by his two long standing mates and colleagues and industry group members for many many years, enabling him to protect the person (and in doing so protecting himself) most likely to have caused the explosion, some one he had gifted his full certifying licence to after just one oral exam. For this I contest my license fee.
 

It could be argued that as Mr Hammond was a co-author of NZ 5261 that he would be “in the know”, but I have an email by another co-author of NZ 5261 saying that I could use an alternative to NZ 5261, and as this other co-author was actually impartial, had no vested interest and hadn’t given John Darnley his license after one oral exam and he hadn’t lobbied for the self certification system, as Mr Hammond had, a self certifying system that had failed so badly, resulting in an explosion, is far more credible. For this I contest my license fee.
 

The Board statement, above, is a contradiction. I was ordered to do a “specified competence course” (a course implies re-training); the Board has claimed “it is a rehabilitative and not punitive body”. But I was assessed and told by the assessor that I would be in the top 10% of gasfitters that he had ever assessed. How an assessment is rehabilitative is beyond my comprehension. I was assessed and found to be in the top 10% of gasfitters assessed by this assessor, take now into account the points 2 to 4 mentioned above……have I done anything wrong at all? Did I deserve to have my character assassinated, loose my home/business and have my wife terrorised? For this I contest my license fee.
 

As I understand it an assessment is an observation of skills and abilities already possessed by someone. I was taught nothing new; I did no course work or remote learning, and was only assessed on my abilities. These abilities that I already had, the same abilities that I already had when installed the califont at the site of the charge mentioned above. I was assessed by a very knowledgeable gentleman who was well up to play as an assessor I might add, and given the chance I am sure I could have learnt a lot from him, but he was instructed by the Board to assess me only, not teach me. For this I contest my license fee.
 

 

I contest paying for my license and funding a corrupt, incompetent and vindictive Board that is riddled with conflicts of interest which they are more than willing to ignore. And have just made the very poor choices of new leadership, under the direction of Mr Jackson and Mr Hardy both Master Plumbers, all done against the best practice recommendations protecting against impartiality made by the NZ Law Commission, who’s one point of advise was to exclude industry/interest groups. Both Mr Jackson and Mr Hardy showed their understanding of impartiality when they were involved in my impartiality hearing where they both viewed and passed judgment that they themselves were impartial (an oxy-moron and very bad grammar if nothing else). A legal paper written in Otago makes this comment when discussing impartiality-
 

           Equally the involvement of some interest personal to the decision maker such as a pecuniary stake destroys the basic conception of the judge as a third party arbitrator between the parties.

 

We couldn’t even muster three separate parties for my impartiality hearing where I was denied entering any verbal evidence, by the Board’s own “impartial” legal advisor, preventing any cross examination by myself or my representation ……For this I contest my license fee.

 

 

Another definition for impartiality is-
 

…….not prejudiced towards or against any particular side or party; fair; unbiased, neutral, objective, detached, just, fair, equal, open-minded, equitable, disinterested, unbiased, even-handed, nonpartisan, unprejudiced, without fear or favour, non-discriminating.

If you are impartial, you are able to act “fairly” because you are not “personally” involved in a situation.

 

 

Also I find it ironic that Mr Hardy being the only time served, certifying gasfitter present at my actual hearing. This includes the so called “impartial” investigator, Tony Hammond, a chemical engineer by studied qualification. I find it ironic because Mr Hardy is British but he is unaware of the British Standard mentioned above….or perhaps deciding to ignore the British Standard. I would have thought that (and this is from the Board’s own website)-
 

“Mr Hardie is registered as a certifying gasfitter and drainlayer and as a licensed plumber. Mr Hardie is the owner of River City Gas, a gas appliance and servicing company, and New Zealand Gas Group Ltd, whose purpose is to increase practitioner awareness and education of gas appliance servicing and installations….. specifically around health and safety”

 

…….and with him being British……… that a fair minded person could be excused for thinking he might/should be aware of this British Standard.  For this I contest my license fee.

 

Mr Bickers made a press release on behalf of the Board stating that it was I who didn’t know the fundamentals of my trade. He made this press release right after my hearing, and well before my right of appeal, (this right of appeal to which the investigators legal representation tried to prevent). Ironically Mr Bickers peddles his “trade” running a course instructing on “The Role of the Professional Witness”, but he ignores his own impartiality conflicts. For this I contest my license fee.
 

This comment from the Board, below, where I am quoted as saying I was a “mere plumber”, and the Board’s inability to show me where I had actually said it. With the Board falling back on a collection of comments where I said something that, when it is taken in its correct context, has the obvious meaning that I meant as an “employee”, i.e. being told what to do by none other than my old boss John Darnley. For this I contest my license fee.
For the charge Mr Gee was found guilty of, the tribunal said: “Mr Gee is not a mere plumber as he referred to himself, but an experienced gasfitter. For a practitioner of Mr Gee’s status, these applied professional shortcomings are seen as being very serious and his conduct unacceptable.” In considering the charge, the Board noted Mr Gee’s lack of appreciation of process, objectives and accountability when signing gas certification certificates and certifying gas installations.

 

As mentioned above, I was told by the Board that I lacked comprehension and understanding of the responsibility of certifying gas work. This statement was issued after just one charge out of 44 originally laid was “established”……. Ironically, this came from the same body of “professionals” who had to add a disclaimer (in red below) to their own electronic register of gas certificates because they, the Board, had accepted, on numerous occasions, incomplete hard copy gas certificates, lacking leak test results!!! For this I contest my license fee.
 

 

     Disclaimer: The details as they appear here are not necessarily an accurate reflection of the details on the original hardcopy certificate. For this reason, should you wish to obtain a copy of this certificate, please complete the form on the previous page or email gascerts@pgdb.co.nz for more info.

 

 

So just for clarification, can you please tell me Max, is the incomplete hard copy accepted by the Board, is it valid, is it still ok with you?..... Even when the hard copy of the cert lacks the gas leak test results? As this is the case with the exploding chipshop in Milton Street where someone nearly died…….. This lack of a GAS LEAK TEST sat well with you Max; you even tried to make excuses for it. This is according to correspondence that you have sent and signed. For this I contest my license fee.
 

 

Also apparently it is acceptable to the Board that the carbon copies of this gas safety cert for the exploding chip-shop, to be issued to the customer and gas supplier, but the master copy not be registered with the Board by Mr Darnley? No action was taken? For this I contest my license fee.
 

 

This state of affairs with this “unregistered” and incomplete master copy of a gas cert was “known” to the Board just days after the explosion……ironically though an electric copy is available on the Board’s own electronic gas cert register, with a corresponding fox-pro entry and a matching electronic cert number to the master hard copy cert number….. this being a total impossibility if not actually received and registered by the Board and smacks of a cover up. I only became aware of this after my hearing after making an OIA request to see the original cert for the last work carried out at the chip shop, the “pizza oven” cert, and so was unable to address this at the hearing. For this I contest my license fee.
 

 

This most fundamental, very important and crucial information is absent on quite a few hard copies that the Board has accepted historically. For this I contest my license fee.
 

 

These are the hard copies that the Board initially claimed they could not locate when I requested copies …..but then these certs (not all mind you) magically re-appeared when I photographed the supplier’s copies of these certs at the gas suppliers offices, and offered to supply to the Board. These certs were part of a batch of certs that I had complained about for 6 years before the explosion. 4 books of certs ordered in my name by Allgas without my permission, just days before I left Allgas. For this I contest my license fee.
 

 

Also the Board having no problem with Allgas altering a cert, requested by letter filled out in my in my name on Allgas letter head, requested 3 months after I had left their employ. For this I contest my license fee.
 

 

For me being labelled by the Board as being vexatious for bringing to the attention of the Board, certs that have writing on the top master copy that is absent from the carbon copies, i.e. added after I signed them. And this added information being in differing colour inks. Mr Hammond bringing to interview pink paper with black ink copies to mask this different ink. For this I contest my license fee.
 

 

You should know or at least be aware that TESTING FOR LEAKS IS FUNDAMENTAL TO GASFITTING. Your lack of acknowledging this shows your’s and the Board’s level of understanding of the gasfitting trade, another reason to contest funding your organisation. For this I contest my license fee. 
 

Allgas sold a third gas hose, months later and after I left Allgas, to feed just two fryers at the exploding chipshop, this is the same hose that ruptured and caused the explosion. But the Board ignored it. For this I contest my license fee.
 

 

John Darnley, who also faced the same charge as me for the site of this explosion…..but this charge later disappeared with no hearing being held to address this charge…….this same man who was granted his licence after just one oral exam….by none other than Tony Hammond the investigator. BOTH of them fellow members of NZIGE, along with Stephen Parker. Of note none of Darnley’s family, who made the majority of employees at Allgas, were ever questioned either. For the Board’s inaction in this respect and its willingness to ignore conflicts of interest I contest my license fee.
 

 

The Board’s unwillingness to act, even though I have formally complained several times, to look at a Legionnaires’ disease risk, where as far as I am aware, the substandard plumbing allows the stagnant water stored in the radiators all summer, to be released by the thermostatic radiator valves, to circulate the hot water circuit and be atomised by exiting via the shower, and all hot water outlets…..to then be breathed in by the occupier….installed and certified by none other than John Darnley. For this I contest my license fee.
 

 

Also, in yet another situation, in another part of the country, the Board has ignored a manipulation of two gas certs to cover three califonts at Powick St on the West Coast. These certs covering dangerous work (dangerous enough to lay charges against me). The Board doing nothing to address this, even though I later lodged a formal complaint. The only “action” taken was done in my name before the manipulation was shown to you, by me, at the hearing. This “action”, being just one letter, with implied blame toward me but was later rescinded and apologised for because it told untruths about me and gave the impression that I was capable of acting illegally. These same letters prejudicing the owner before my hearing (similar letters sent to all the owners of all sites that I faced charges, other than the chipshop charge). Please see attached. For this I contest my license fee.
 

 

In your statement above in point 1, you talk of proof. Tell me Max, why I should fund an organisation, an organisation entrusted with enforcing the workmanship standards of gasfitting and in doing so protecting the safety of the public, who then ignores the many blatant offences listed above and then makes me the scapegoat? The manipulation of these gas certs in point 25 above quite possibly an illegal manipulation of two legal documents to cover dangerous sub standard gasfitting. The Board doing nothing when it has this “proof” land in its lap at an official and recorded hearing and have since received a formal complaint? For this I contest my license fee.
 

 

I would like to take this opportunity to bring to your attention to a point of law below-
 

28.73

 

           Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who—

a.      (a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person, by threats, bribes, or other corrupt means, from giving evidence in any cause or matter (whether civil or criminal, and whether tried or to be tried in New Zealand or in an overseas jurisdiction); or

b.      (b) influences or attempts to influence, by threats or bribes or other corrupt means, a member of a jury in his or her conduct as such (whether in a cause or matter tried or to be tried in New Zealand or in an overseas jurisdiction, and whether the member has been sworn as a member of a particular jury or not); or

c.      (c) accepts any bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence (whether in a cause or matter tried or to be tried in New Zealand or in an overseas jurisdiction); or

d.      (d) accepts any bribe or other corrupt consideration on account of his or her conduct as a member of a jury (whether in a cause or matter tried or to be tried in New Zealand or in an overseas jurisdiction, and whether the member has been sworn as a member of a particular jury or not); or

e.       (e) wilfully attempts in any other way to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice in New Zealand or the course of justice in an overseas jurisdiction.

 

 

 

I can not express this enough; I will clear my name and have those responsible for terrorising my wife brought to account.
 

 Just one thing I would like to clarify for you and the Board….. it is never ever ever acceptable, in any realm of decency to send child sexual abuse case notes merely to prove an argument on probability in a plumbing arena. From memory, all the sets (think it was 3) of case notes consisted of depraved sexual behaviour.  Your advise that I should ask another lawyer to explain this to me is not required, I will just utilise my sense of common decency…… it merely reflects the mettle of the people who send it and those that allow it to be sent, and in your case the people who see no wrong in it. As you know my wife read those sick and vile papers, sent in a plain package,  just before she was financially forced to sell our home and live in a caravan for 14 weeks in winter, with my two young sons, while I worked away to support them. For this I contest my license fee.
 

To the best of my knowledge if I contest my license fee, until my very real concerns are addressed I am legally allowed to practice using my present license. Please correct me if I am wrong, because I do not want to work illegally…I never have, nor do I want to do, nor be involved in sub-standard or dangerous work.
 

I have paid the equivalent cost of my license fee to the charity of my choice, a charity other than that of the Board. A so called charity who have been shown to have taken 2 million dollars illegally from tradesman and has been shown to be wanting by the Auditor General, Ombudsman and the Regulation Review Committee, aswell as all of the above. My choice of charity is the Ronald McDonald House in Christchurch, (please see attached). It is at the other end of the spectrum to the Board, this is an unbelievably worthwhile public service which gives to the community. My wife and I have had occasion to use this facility, and very much puts you and your people in to perspective. It is the same charity that I asked the Board to pay into with the recommended $500.00 recompense that Helen Cull QC advised the Board to pay me in compensation for the letters that wrongly prejudiced people in my ability to act illegally, but the Board apparently thought it better to spend it on things like expensive catering for their meetings, another reflection on the make up of these people.
 

 

You see Max it is about the principle; it is not about the power or money. It is about your, and the Board’s, reprehensible behaviour and the character assassination that you have inflicted on me and the terrorising of my wife……..for nothing other than to cover the Board’s short comings.
 

Please can you confirm if these figures below reflect the industries participation-
 

 

6175 Certifying Plumbers of which only     2112 are licensed,  4063 have not bothered to relicense.

3214 Registered Plumbers of which only     733 are licensed,  2481 have not bothered to relicense.

 

2683 Certifying Gasfitters of which only    1052 are licensed,  1631 have not bothered to relicense.

2319 Registered Gasfitters of which only    374 are licensed,  1945 have not bothered to relicense.

 

6952 Certifying Drainlayers of which only  1735 are licensed,  5217 have not bothered to relicense.

234 Registered Drainlayers of which only     73 are licensed,    161 have not bothered to relicense.

 

(21577) is the total number of persons registered.

 

            (6079) are licensed.

 

            (15498) have not bothered to relicense.

 

              If this is correct, it is another reason I contest my license fee.

 

 

The Board is running down and dismantling our industry, which will benefit those that remain and have the protection of the Board.
 

The Board’s apparent willingness to protect the guilty……… at the expense of the innocent……. while risking the public’s health and safety in the process, is disgusting and abhorrent.
 

Especially when it is in the public’s name that the Board claim to have the right to gather these license fee funds.………….. it is for this I contest my license fee. 
 

 

 Yours sincerely, Paul Gee.

the attachments referred to in my long rant

That's meant to read "were" advised to pay me $500.00, on advice of the QC Helen Cull, in compensation for writing letters that told fibs to all the people who they laid charges to, except the chip shop.

Not "we" advised.....as you know they never listen, lol.

with the attachments........how corrupt does it need to be, or what extreme action needs to be taken before justice is served?

 

the best one and most nonsensical  attachment is the one called "pg 31"