Huo Raymond: Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHuo Raymond: Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 11 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:12009. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RAYMOND HUO (Labour):What a surprise. I got last-minute notice from the Government that the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Amendment Bill would be debated this afternoon. What a surprise. So just like the manner in which this bill progressed we got ambushed again. Nobody had any idea that this bill would be coming up in the House this afternoon. We had it at the last minute.At the Committee stage I congratulated theCampbell Live television show “The politics of plumbing” because that show picked up lots of important issues that we did not pick up. For instance who are the cowboys? Because enabling the board to prosecute these so-called cowboys in the sector is one of the main reasons why the Minister has chosen to get the bill rushed through the House. Through that television show we understood that lots of competent quality and experienced plumbers drainlayers and gasfitters choose to boycott the undemocratic process of the board and choose to boycott the fees imposed on them and—to borrow the words of the Ombudsman—that is not only a kind of unjustified fee but also a kind of a new form of tax imposed on those experienced plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers. Therefore they have become the so-called cowboys. As I reinforced in my speech contributions during the Committee stage nobody would be in a position to defend these so-called cowboys. But again as the television show picked up lots of the quality and experienced tradespeople choose to boycott the board and have therefore become the so-called cowboys.I would also like to congratulate the officials on their hard work because although this particular bill is not terribly complicated it does involve lots of hard work especially when the officials are placed in the unnecessary position of advising the select committee and advising the members.But having said that I would like to pick up two major points. They are very important points that I would like to touch upon. One is that to the surprise of many of the members one of the pieces of advice that appeared in the Ombudsman’s briefing—and that is on paragraph 4—reads: “The Ombudsman has upheld the complaint and recommended among other things legislation to validate the disciplinary levy imposed by the Board between 31 July 2010 and 11 January 2012 … The provisions of the PGD Amendment Bill form part of the Ministry’s response to the Ombudsman’s recommendations. The Ministry has been asked to respond to the Ombudsman by 29 March 2013.” It is all correct but I have a major problem with the set phrase—the magic phrase—“among other things”. What are the other things in the magic set phrase “among other things”?If we turn to page 18 of the Ombudsman’s ruling released early this year we will find that—and I will read it out—there are basically two recommendations. The firstone is: “To the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board that they together or separately make proposals to the Minister of Building and Construction concerning the desirability or otherwise of: a. legislation to validate the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (Fees) Notice 2010 as it relates to the disciplinary levy;”. That is correct. What was missing from the briefing is No. 2 which says: “To the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (regardless of the outcome of 1 above) that”—and I will it read out—“it enter into discussions of representatives of persons registered under the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 2006 to achieve a satisfactory arrangement with persons who have paid excess amount of levy under the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (Fees) Notice 2010 in respect of the disciplinary levy.”So there are two sets of recommendations and the two sets of recommendations come hand in hand. They are namely to bring legislation to validate the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (Fees) Notice 2010 and also—reading into the Ombudsman’s view on this matter on page 10 of the ruling—as a condition of validation the board should engage with industry representatives whereby the excess levies paid could in whole or in part be refunded over a period or some credit could be given in respect of future fee or levy payments in compensation. But unfortunately that second set of the recommendations was missing hidden or buried in the set phrase “among other things”. This is unfortunate and unhelpful because one of the main reasons why half of the sector took the complaint to Parliament’s Regulations Review Committee the Office of the Ombudsman etc. is unfairness.What is in issue here—to borrow the Ombudsman’s words on page 7 of the ruling—“is an unlawful levy a tax that the Board was not authorised to impose.” Secondly in relation to procedural fairness or unfairness there was a failure to consult adequately before making the continuing professional development notices. Again I would like to refer to the Ombudsman’s recommendations released earlier this year. Page 13 of his opinion reads: “Consultation is often seen as a necessary element in ensuring the fairness of administrative decision-making by enabling those affected by proposed decisions to express their views before such decisions are taken. No doubt this is an important perhaps the principal reason for requiring consultation prior to decision-making.” Secondly: “… another important reason is to promote the effectiveness of any decision itself. By drawing on the knowledge and expertise of industry participants it can be expected that the decisions ultimately taken by the Board in regard to registration and licensing will be better more grounded decisions than those taken without the benefit of such input.”Lack of fairness and lack of adequate consultation are two of the main reasons why the industry took complaints to the Office of the Ombudsmen and to other officers as well. It is therefore important to present the full picture not only for the general public but also for National members of Parliament who have voted for this bill and I believe will vote for this bill again. This is a bill seeking to validate retrospectively the unlawful imposition of an unlawful tax. Having understood all the issues if those members still believe that they should support their Minister for Building and Construction by voting for this bill I say good on them. At least they have the guts to be a political hooligan.The second issue relates to another point I picked up from the briefing and I believe it is one of the grounds for the Minister believing we should rush this bill through. On 12 May 2011 the chair of the Regulations Review Committee moved a motion in Parliament to disallow the clauses providing for the July 2010 fees notice relating to the disciplinary levy with effect from 31 March 2012 the end of the board’s 2011-12 registration year. It goes on and on and the last sentence is—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.