I agree Slick the PGDB are not making money from the courses, but they are collecting money for the courses to be assessed prior to points being awarded and they are making up the administrative framework that requires the courses and the allocation of points.  It is not the courses or learning that practitioners do that is at fault here - every practitioner that I have ever met likes to learn NEW things, but not necessarily re-hash things they already know and pay for the privilege of doing so.  The current system is flawed - but note I said "system".  I am not against upskilling per se, but I am dead against the framework that we are following now.  Plumbers, gasfitters and drainlayers have been going to courses for years that have been run by suppliers, they read the Plumbers Journal and attend trade shows.  All of this increases their knowledge and makes them better at what they do.  Now they are paying astronomical sums to get what they used to get for free because the system requires a reporting and assessing regime that is cumbersome.
Treat practitioners like adults and let them assume a percentage of self monitored learning.  Is reading the Plumbers Journal worthy of a point or two - yes it is because it is full of technical knowledge.  Is attending a Master Plumber meeting where there is a guest speaker talking on how to install a new product worth points - yes it is, is attending a seminar at the merchants worthy of points - yes it is - but you get no points for any of these because the system does not allow it.  We need a system where we can log on and record our own learning. 

The PGDB are going to "consult" us yet again - this year on competency based licensing and upskilling.  We need to be strong in our voice - and we need to be clear when we are criticised for being against upskilling - that it is not upskilling that we are against, but the system and packaging of it - and the cost incurred to our business in time and money because of it. 

hi guys/Thunder, good one much more diplomatic post, the thing is if we express ourselves like "cloth cap yobbo`s" we will be treated the same and ignored so the more diplomatic the better but still getting our point across is the way forward. The reason the board are pushing cpd is to generate more income for themselves, as you realise an information highway is the way forward for all, my idea is an e-mail system that is covered in the cost of our licence where we receive relevant info/new regs/product info etc which we have to acknowledge by a built in return system, this could happen so many times in the licence year and even some multi choice questions that have to be answered. These questions could be used at re-licence time whereby if you have`nt read/answered and returned them ,then you cannot be re-licenced until you have done, seems simple to me the board could contract unitec/open poly or similar to carry out the system that way we would not have to make special trips to training facilities at unsociable/work times and at great cost in time and travel. I am sure that someone in the teaching industry could tailor the perfect system to make everone happy, any thoughts, cheers

This is a very good idea robbo because this allows everyone to be on the same page in CPD development and this allows the PGDB to acess the level of knowledge across the board on praticular issues or codes and gives them an understanding on where to focus there next years CPD questioneers...so we should drop the totaly wrong displinary fees and replace it with CPD fees...this i can see working very well and i would be totaly happy to pay this fee. but i will NEVER be happy to pay a guilty fee(displinary levey) cus  im innocent till proved guilty!.
Thats a bloody good idea robbo.

Hi Robbo good post #29 I would disagree a teacher could come up with something to make everybody happy , what you say though makes good sense to me , lets hope the board have someone who follows these posts and at least give it some consideration , maybe send this idea to the board 

hi guys/jax, In our view, consultation using an options paper does not meet the requirements of section
33(1). In the decision in Wellington International Airport v Air New Zealand [1993] 1 NZLR
671, 676 the Court of Appeal said that for consultation to be meaningful, there must be
made available to the other party sufficient information to enable it to be adequately
informed to make intelligent and useful responses. An options paper cannot be said to
amount to meaningful consultation about the “proposal for the contents of the notice”.
   this was the finding of the review committee,cheers