Williamson Maurice: Motions — Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board Notices 2010—Disallowances 
Williamson Maurice: Motions — Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board Notices 2010—Disallowances 
[Volume:672;Page:18651] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 In response to the chair of the Regulations Review Committee I will make a few points about members’ motion No. 1. First of all I start from the fact that the whole issue of the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board has been quite shambolic for a long period of time. Members on the other side of the House will know that Dr Michael Cullen while Minister for Tertiary Education sacked the entire board at least twice because of the complete turmoil it was in. But the good news is that under the chairmanship of Hazel Armstrong and the board of recent times it is getting its act together. We recently were in receipt of a report from the Office of the Auditor-General on the operation of the board and it gave it a reasonably good bill of health. It said there were still some things wrong that needed tidying but a heap of stuff wrong from the past had been addressed. Basically it was a report card that said the board was OK at present poor in the past and looking to get the future quite tidy. When I met with Hazel Armstrong this morning I conveyed my delight at the progress the board is making. 
The two issues we are debating here today are to do with the use of disciplinary fees and how they were set and more important whether a continuing professional development programme that the board had put in place through regulations could stay in place. I want to make it clear that I think both of those issues are being dealt with. I now have an output agreement with the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board and under that output agreement these issues will be dealt with. So I do not agree with the timing. The timing of the disciplinary fees matter would basically have meant the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board was technically insolvent for a period of time if it had stood. Fortunately it was withdrawn but then a split recommendation was resubmitted without our knowledge and the second one would have made the continuing professional development programme not mandatory. 
I say to the chair of the Regulations Review Committee that I think it is really important that—and I think at the end of his speech he covered it well—if a small group of people from whatever industry from whatever sector come to a select committee and say to that committee they are unhappy and think something is wrong then that committee has an obligation to go out and ask whether there is any industry association or any large body out there that represents that industry and to get them in to find out their view. I think the people who came before the committee were three plumbers one of whom was not even registered. The Master Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers (NZ) Inc.—the Master Plumbers association I call them—has 733 businesses as its members which employ 3800 tradespeople and about 400 of those employees have joined the Master Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers simply because they want to be an employee member. That means it represents about 60 percent of the entire industry. I think it would have behoved the committee at the time to go out to a massive chunk of the represented industry and ask their view. If their view had aligned with the three people who had come before the committee it would be all on. But it does not. The Master Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers do not support this disallowance motion. 
I will tell members why. We have already clarified the disciplinary fees issue which means we will be able to bring in a new regime next year so I am pleased about that. But the second part is the disallowance of the mandatory nature of the continuing professional development programme. Many employers and industry suppliers out there have geared up their programmes and have invested in continuing professional development. I am sure both sides of the House think it is an essential part of the industry that people keep up their competence levels and their skills. Many tradespeople have also spent money on course fees and have taken time out of their businesses to participate in these courses. If this motion was allowed to stand those people would have the ground cut right out from under them. 
I thank the chairman of the Regulations Review Committee for raising the issues although both the disciplinary fees issue and the continuing professional development issue are addressed under the new output agreement I have signed with Hazel Armstrong and the board and we are dealing with them. I also thank him for his comments at the end of his speech that if anything like this comes up in future the committee will go out and seek a much wider cohort of view. I know that members of the House will have experienced this all the time: a small number of people in any industry members can name—for example a small number of boners at the meatworks—may have a particular view about the world but is that view reflected in the view of the Meat Industry Association or the view of the meatworkers’ union? If it is and if the vast bulk of members support it then it clearly reflects the wider mood. 
I say to the House that the Government will vote against this disallowance motion. We will vote against it not because it is not something that needs to happen—and it will happen—but because of the timing. Had the first motion the Tim Macindoe motion stayed it would have caused serious trouble with regard to the board’s funding. It would have been technically insolvent. That was fixed by withdrawal of the first motion. The split motion would also send massive uncertainty out across the whole sector. The whole sector of plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers would now not know what it means to have a continuing professional development regime which is basically an upskilling system for their members. It is important that they have that certainty. So the Government will vote against this disallowance motion but I give assurance to those members of the committee who may be concerned that the new regime that comes in as of next year as we bring the output agreement with the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board to fruition will address both the issues. In fact the disciplinary levies stuff is already under control and being fixed. 
I suggest to the House that we not take a lot more time about this matter. The Regulations Review Committee did what it thought was the right thing to do at the time. I have heard the chairman say that in future he will go out and consult more widely so as to get a representative view. If the motion had been a representative view of the entire industry—for example if the Master Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers association had agreed with it—I would not be standing here today because it really does not affect me either way. But I think it is quite clear that the industry does want the continuing professional development regime to stay in place. That will happen by the fact that the Government will vote against the disallowance motion.