Rich Katherine: Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill — Second Reading 
Rich Katherine: Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6610] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to stand in the House today on the second reading of the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill. First I acknowledge that the National Party will now be supporting this bill. We did not support the Energy Safety Review Bill in the first reading because we had some very serious concerns about the drafting of it. It was not so much that it was a dog’s breakfast; I would prefer to say that it was overly ambitious in terms of what was trying to be achieved in one bill. 
I also thank the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Harry Duynhoven for his patience with the Commerce Committee and his desire I think to reach a genuine solution for the industry. Sometimes select committees have seen Ministers who just want to push a bill through come hell or high water without genuine change. But in this instance we saw that there was a genuine desire to make improvements. It was not related to the political process but I think to a desire to do the best for plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers—and in the original bill electrical workers as well. 
What the committee did first was to strip out the electrical side of things and that matter was discussed at the first reading by my colleague Chris Auchinvole. The intention was that the Energy Safety Review Bill deal with just the simpler issues so that they could come back to the House earlier. It is a shame that that was a bit unnecessary because we are having second readings for both bills here today. But the aim was to have the electrical workers part of the original legislation come back to the House a bit earlier. 
So we split the original bill into two bills. The first bill dealt with the issues relating to electrical workers. This Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill has a more compact set of objectives. This area had its own complexity because there were real concerns about the situation in New Zealand for plumbers in particular. It is fair to say that plumbers were not well served by the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board. In fact the relationship between the board and the industry training organisation was nothing short of dysfunctional. We did agree with the firing of that board because it was important to have a new broom sweeping clean. We were a bit unsure though as to how Mr Philip Routhan was able to make the jump from the previous board into his new role but as a result of our questioning at the select committee we have been told that that matter is under a separate review. This side of the House will be watching the process of that review very carefully because we are aware that there are concerns about that appointment not just on this side of the House but also among other parties within the House.  
. It seems that the relationship between the new Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board and the industry training organisation should be improved as a result of changes that are made here but also as a result of changes made by the select committee as a whole. The members of the select committee felt it was important that it be clear there was more consultation between the board and the industry when it came to things like the designations of classes of workers. There needed to be consultation so that if classes were going to change those involved in the industry had a greater say. 
It was an absolute disgrace that the situation overseen by the previous board saw a 90 percent failure rate of students sitting their plumbing exams. What is most disgraceful is the impact of this on the lives of those young men—and I am sure they are mainly men; I hope there might be a few women plumbers—who are trying to get through their apprenticeships only to sit a mismatched exam that saw only 11 percent or so pass. Our concern in the National Party was the question of what happened to all those young people. Did they reach a certain point in their career where they could go no further? That mismatch between the training and the exam was totally unacceptable. I hope that the changes made here ensure that the system is one that can not only serve our nation as a whole to ensure safety and competence but serve those young people who have a desire to go into these trades where we do really need more people full stop. 
One of the wins for the National Party was the agreement to return from a solely licensing situation to a dual system of licensing and registration. Although officials felt there was some degree of tidiness in moving to a solely licensing regime one major fact was overlooked. Many people in trades see their registration as the pinnacle of their qualifications and the top of their career. One of the things that was not taken into account by those who were pushing for a solely licence-based regime was the amount of self-esteem and positive thoughts that many of those involved with plumbing and electrical work have about their registration. I know that the Minister Harry Duynhoven trained as an electrician and is deeply proud of the fact that he is a registered electrician. People such as the Minister would have been sent into the ether because they would not have an up-to-date licence to be able to practice—albeit that there is a great degree of pride and self-esteem associated with that initial qualification. So I am proud that we have saved that part of things for those tradespeople who came to the select committee and said that this was something that was really important to them and they wanted kept. 
There are also some good changes to the licensing regime itself. In the original Energy Safety Review Bill it was suggested that plumbers would need to renew their licences every 2 years. Two years is a very short space of time and the committee members felt it was important to extend that out to 5 years. We all understand the importance of competence; we all want to know when we hire a plumber and he or she comes into our home that that person is competent. But on the flip side of that we do not want plumbers in the situation where they are continually having to relicense; there are compliance costs and frustration associated with a 2-year-licensing regime. I think that this change is a win also. 
This bill introduces a greater amount of ministerial control. I usually argue strongly against that and in fact in the long term I would like to see self-determination for a lot of our trades. But in this instance where there was poor leadership from the board and we saw the shocking situation of 90 percent of our young people sitting their plumbing exams fail it was demonstrated that self-determination was not an option. In that circumstance we needed the Minister to have greater ability to ensure consistency continuity and a certain standard of service. I am glad that the board is now required to undertake more consultation with the industry on a regular basis. From the National Party’s perspective it is a win to see more people involved in the industry on that board. It is only as a result of those changes that the National Party is now in a position to support this legislation. 
It is a fine example of how the select committee process can work within Parliament. We have now come to a situation where there is agreement from both the major parties. I would like to thank those members on the committee and also in particular Evelyn Cole from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs who as an official worked very thoroughly to assist us through a process of additional consultation.