hi guys, yes I am waiting for the nats to come knocking at my door, I`ll be quizzing them on the amendment bill and why they voted for it,cheers

hi guys, (The Board’s Chief Executive, Max Pedersen, said upon a unanimous decision taken at a board meeting yesterday Peter Jackson, Director of h2o design ltd (Queenstown) has been appointed Chairman of the Board)
...
so how much of our money did they waste putting adverts in national newspapers when they already knew who the job was going to go to, one of their mates who by virtue of the facts that he has his own plumbing company it must be a `conflict of interest`, cheers
…
`Director of h2o design ltd` well I didn’t  know that he was the ` designer` of water, I thought it was a natural element, they `board members` will take credit for anything.
 
 

hi guys,
...
 Labour associate spokesperson for Building and Construction Raymond Huo, cheers

So.................we lost Mr Williamsons mate and gained two Master Plumbers.....who now lead the Board and have an over whelming influence?


From the Paper by the NZ Law Commission....http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/2008/01/Publication_131_385_IP6_Tribunals_in_NZ.pdf

Politically neutral appointments
5.8 a strong theme to emerge from our discussions with tribunal members and
departments that administer tribunals was that the appointment process must
be merit-based if members are to be of a high standard. Merit-based appointments
have significant implications for independence, as they help dispel any suggestion
that members have been appointed based on political patronage or favouritism.
While government departments will necessarily be involved in the appointment
process, appointments should not be “political” in the sense that the government
deliberately selects members who might be seen as favouring its own interests.295
Having appointment processes which appear to be based on merit, and are
politically neutral, is therefore important for two reasons. First, it encourages
public confidence that tribunal members are of a high standard of competence
and integrity, and, second, it ensures that they perform their duties free
from undue influence by government or others.296 We reiterate that there is no
evidence of members being biased in favour of particular political views;
however it is important that there is no perception of lack of independence.


From the same people who brought us........


5.3 it has frequently been suggested that independence comprises two distinct yet
interrelated components: impartiality and institutional independence.289
impartiality refers to a tribunal’s approach to deciding cases without any personal
interest or bias. This is seen as essential to good decision-making, as an impartial
decision-maker will be better able to determine facts and to apply standards
accurately.290 institutional independence refers to the structural or institutional
framework which secures the appearance of, and actual, impartiality.
some distance ought to be maintained between the decision-maker and disputing
parties. in this sense institutional independence encourages impartial
decision-making, and is also valuable in engendering public confidence that
tribunals will decide disputes in an impartial manner.291 This approach has
informed our analysis. However in this paper we have not considered the issues
specifically under these two headings. in this chapter, we identify some key
issues around independence in New Zealand tribunals as being impartiality,
appointments, tenure and administration.


And of course the whole reason why Master Plumbers are according to our own NZ Law Commission.....

5.36 a difficulty arises here in that occupational regulatory and disciplinary bodies are
often funded by the relevant industry, which may adversely affect perceptions of
their independence. However, this funding is necessary. We suggest that it may be
acceptable for these bodies to be funded through mechanisms such as licensing fees
and industry levies provided that they are independent from industry associations
and other purely industry groups, and that other mechanisms are in place to
safeguard their independence. For example, in its recent review of the real estate
agents act 1976, the Ministry of Justice suggested that the body responsible for
licensing and disciplinary matters ought to be “independent from the industry,”
meaning that the real estate institute of New Zealand should not be able to exercise
control over it. This body would be constituted as a separate body that would be
required to report annually to Parliament. Finally, it was seen as important for
public perceptions of independence that the Minister of Justice should appoint
members, rather than the industry appointing the members.337 We note that these
recommendations arose in a context of public concern about the real estate industry.
However, we suggest that the underlying principles reflect a wider trend towards
greater independence for occupational bodies, and that the recommendations can
be considered as an example of best practice in any event.



When we have laws that only apply to those who are governed but not the enforcers of that law.......what do we have???

provided that they are independent from industry associations
and other purely industry groups, and that other mechanisms are in place to
safeguard their independence


So........ how can we have a Master Plumber Chair and Deputy Chair............. the Board is meant to be independent of industry groups..........it is totally being lead by them............

Are we second or third class citizens of NZ......are we below the law........lesser people???

hi guys, I`m sure he meant that he wants to beat as many people as he can from industry, I`ll give him a go I'm sure with jujitsu and kung fu training I`ll survive,cheers

Disadvantage may have resulted, for instance, from one or
more of the following:
• poor or unlawful decision-making
• lack of consistency
• inefficiency/ineffectiveness
• poor communication or lack of accountability.


Yes all of the above apply to my case

This policy does not cover complaints:
• about an action, order or decision of the Board under
Part 3 of the 2006 Act (relating to discipline and offences)
• of a general nature about the Board’s policies and
processes under the 2006 Act
• about an action, order or decision of the Board under
the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976
• that have already been considered under the Board’s
historical complaints resolution process

Whats the point? what CAN you complain about?

• considered to be trivial, frivolous or vexatious.
If you have any queries about the process, please call us
on freephone 0800 743 262 and ask to speak with the
Complaints Resolution Officer.