Chauvel Charles: Motions — Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board Notices 2010—Disallowances 
Chauvel Charles: Motions — Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board Notices 2010—Disallowances 
[Volume:672;Page:18648] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the House disallow clauses 3(1) 3(2) 8(1) and 8(2) in the Schedule to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (Plumbing Registration and Licensing) Notice 2010; clauses 3(1) 3(2) 3(3) 3(4) 8(1) 8(2) 8(3) and 8(4) in the Schedule to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (Gasfitting Registration and Licensing) Notice 2010; clauses 3(1) 3(2) 8(1) and 8(2) in the Schedule to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (Drainlaying Registration and Licensing) Notice 2010; and clauses (6) and (7) in the Schedule to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers (Fees) Notice 2010 but that disallowance of clauses (6) and (7) in the Schedule to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (Fees) Notice 2010 not take effect until 31 March 2012 
. In March last year the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board issued the four notices named in the motion that I have just moved. In May and June last year complaints were made by members of the industry to the Regulations Review Committee about new training requirements put in place by the notices for plumbers and drainlayers. Similar requirements already apply to gasfitters. The requirements will have to be fulfilled before an annual practising licence will be able to be granted. A further separate complaint was made by a member of the industry last July about the way in which the board set its disciplinary levy—the way in which the board finances the hearing of complaints against members of the industry. 
The Standing Order ground for the complaints about the continuing professional development requirements and the complaint about the disciplinary levy was that the board had made some unusual or unexpected use of powers conferred by the Act. An additional Standing Order ground was relied upon in the complaint concerning continuing professional development requirements and that was that the consultation requirements set out in the Act were not followed. 
The Regulations Review Committee agreed to hear the complaints and did so in November last year. We heard from the complainants and from representatives of the board. In respect of the two complaints we upheld them. We were not satisfied that the continuing professional development requirements had been dealt with under the relevant statutory provisions by the board in a proper fashion. Nor were we satisfied with the consultation undertaken by the board. We did not feel that it was sufficiently thorough or meaningful so as to ensure that the requirements were truly relevant to the industry. 
In respect of the disciplinary levy we were not satisfied that the board had a correct understanding of its statutory powers. According to the evidence we heard costs for the collection of bad debts a practitioner roadshow a fees review and a debt-collection project were all included in the calculation of the levy. The board also appeared to think—incorrectly—that it could use the levy to enforce action against non-registered persons. 
For those reasons we unanimously decided to uphold the complaints and in February this year we reported to the House and drew its attention to the four notices. In addition we made a number of recommendations to the Government. A response to those recommendations is due next week on 16 May but it has been tabled today. In it the Government accepts the committee’s recommendations and I thank the Minister for his thorough consideration of those recommendations and his acceptance of them. 
In accordance with the committee’s usual practice following our decision to uphold the complaints a member of the committee placed a disallowance motion on the Order Paper. On this occasion the disallowance motion appeared in the name of the deputy chairperson Tim Macindoe because of my absence on bereavement leave. Ordinarily that would have completed the role of the committee. 
The Standing Orders provide that disallowance motions moved by members of the Regulations Review Committee must be brought on for debate by the Government within 21 sitting days or the regulations that are the subject of the motion lapse. That is the way in which the committee is given teeth by the Standing Orders. But on this occasion the committee made an error. We were well motivated in doing what we did but it was an error none the less. 
After we reported to the House in February and after the deputy chairperson moved a disallowance motion the committee’s involvement should have stopped. If the Government had concerns about the disallowance motion it should have brought it on for debate and then moved amendments to it—as I apprehend that Mr Williamson may shortly do. Instead the Government asked to meet the committee to express its concerns about the disallowance motion. We were told that it would put the financial viability of the board in jeopardy if it proceeded in its current form. 
For that reason we agreed to meet the officials to hear the detail of the Government’s concerns. We took the Government to be principally concerned with the disciplinary levy rather than the continuing professional development requirements and because we were concerned not to send the board insolvent we took the unusual step of agreeing that it was desirable to defer the coming into effect of the disallowance motion. 
So the deputy chair withdrew his motion and I put one on the Order Paper—the one we are now debating. It is identical to the original motion except that it provides that disallowance in respect of the disciplinary levy should not take effect until next year. Regrettably that did not satisfy the Government. We received further correspondence and we heard from the Minister that his officials should also have asked for a deferral of the disallowance of the notices concerning continuing professional development. 
When the Minister spoke to us on the subject—because of course we made ourselves available to him when he asked—he made further criticisms of the committee’s process. However we did not feel able to defer to the Minister’s request for yet another disallowance motion and instead we suggested that bringing the matter on for debate was the appropriate thing to do. I commend the Minister and the Government for agreeing to this course of action and I confirm on behalf of the Opposition that if a reasonable amendment to the disallowance motion is moved by the Minister it will be supported by members on this side of the House. 
I thought it was important to rehearse the history of this matter and I have now done so. I wish to make a few points in conclusion because there is not time to do so fully. However I want to say this about what my colleagues on the committee and I have learnt from this exercise specifically in respect of this complaint and generally in terms of our future procedure. First the complaints had merit. The complainants were justified and right to bring them and we were right I think as a committee on the evidence to have upheld them. 
Having said that I tell the House that the new board including chairperson Hazel Armstrong is doing an excellent job of trying to bring in new procedures and new requirements that we hope will see the industry being governed in the future on a much better and more sound footing. 
On the subject matter of the complaints I say that continuing professional development is a good thing in the industry and it should be supported as long as it is properly consulted on in the future and put in place in reliance on the correct statutory provisions. That did not happen in the past but we hope that the board has learnt a lesson and will enable that to happen in the future. Similar comments apply in respect of the board’s disciplinary procedures. They were not made in correct reliance on the statutory procedures. We hope we have been very clear as to how in future the board can put in place a disciplinary levy that is properly assessed and properly calculated. 
Those are the specific matters that I wanted to draw the House’s attention to in respect of the particular complaints we heard. I will conclude with a couple of general observations about the procedure of the Regulations Review Committee as far as I intend to supervise it in the time that I have left as its chair. When we hear complaints that may have an effect beyond the narrow interests of the parties concerned in future we are intending to advertise that fact rather than simply advise the parties themselves that we intend to hear the complaint and hear a response to it from the subject of that complaint. Obviously that will allow other potentially affected persons or parties to take the opportunity to be heard by the committee so that we can know the full effects in future of any disallowance motion we might be minded to move. 
The final lesson I think we have learnt as far as procedure is concerned is that we will not enter into correspondence once we have decided on a disallowance motion even for the best of reasons; even if it is to attempt to accommodate a legitimate concern on the part of the executive. Our decisions and any resulting motions will stand. 
Motions when they are made for disallowance will simply have to be brought on for debate. At that point they can be the subject of amendment motions from any member of the House including a Minister so that if the Government has a concern about the way in which we have dealt with a matter it can put an amendment forward and the House can deal with the issue in a fully transparent way as was intended originally by the Standing Orders. 
I think that if we proceed otherwise even when we are motivated by a desire to extend and maintain courtesy to the executive we endanger the intended transparency with which the committee should function. I commend the disallowance motion to the House and I thank the House for the time that has been allocated for this matter to be dealt with properly.