Walker Holly: Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Walker Holly: Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8568. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 When we were first approached by the Minister for Building and Construction Maurice Williamson about this Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Amendment Bill the Green Party was prepared to indicate our tentative support for the changes that it made. However we did have substantial concerns about the process including the constrained period of time for the select committee to consider the bill and at this point we have to say that those concerns remain and are so substantial that we are unable to support the bill at this time. 
We know in the Green Party that the grievances and complaints concerning the levies and fees charged by the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board have been ongoing for some time. As we have heard in the past that board used to charge a disciplinary levy to all those registered under the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act and this levy was used to fund the board’s complaints and disciplinary processes. In 2010 after considering a complaint the Regulations Review Committee recommended that this levy be disallowed as it was being used to fund complaints and disciplinary processes against unregistered people as well as those registered under the Act while only registered people were paying the levy. In response to the report of the Regulations Review Committee the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board replaced that levy with an offences fee which carried essentially the same function. Now as we know a second complaint about this offences fee is currently before the Regulations Review Committee and although that committee is yet to report on this complaint there is a risk that if the offences fee too is disallowed then the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board will be required to refund the moneys it has collected under both the levy and the fee and that will leave it in a financially unviable position. 
When the Act that created the board was passed in 2006 it was arguably and quite likely the intention of Parliament that the board’s disciplinary and prosecutorial role would be funded by a levy of this nature paid by those registered under the Act as is the case in other construction industry boards. However the Act as it is currently worded seems to fall short of this. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am finding myself rather distracted by interjections flying between other members of the House. If we could have a stop to that it would be great. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes can I just advise the member that interjections from one side to the other are perfectly in order. However I recognise that because of where the member is sitting—and the member should know this now; she has been here long enough—any interjections from the cross benches can affect the microphone. 
HOLLY WALKER 
: As I was saying the Act as it is currently worded seems to fall short of what Parliament intended in 2006. So this amendment bill would fix that loophole by retrospectively validating the funds collected through both the levy and the fee and allow the board to continue to collect in this manner. As I mentioned at the beginning when approached about this the Green Party was prepared to offer tentative support to allow this bill to be sent to a select committee so that the issues could be traversed. The amendments in this bill are we believe potentially sensible and they may settle what has been a long-running dispute between the board and some of its members. 
However I think all members of this House would agree—at least I certainly hope they would—that legislation with retrospective application should be approached very carefully indeed and with meticulous precision and scrutiny. The Green Party has serious concerns about the process and time frames proposed for this bill to allow that level of scrutiny to occur. We know that the bill has had to be drafted quite quickly and although that is no criticism of the drafters simply a statement of fact when legislation is drafted very quickly it can often contain errors or omissions. These are picked up ideally by the scrutiny applied at the select committee hearing. However in this case that hardly seems likely given that the time frame proposed for the select committee to consider this bill is just 1 week. I believe we will have a chance soon to debate this shortened time frame when the Minister seeks permission from the House for that. But for now suffice it to say that especially because of its retrospective nature this bill requires very close scrutiny and it will not get that from a 1-week select committee process. 
Furthermore as a number of speakers have already noted the issues and complaints regarding the levies or fees raised by the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board have been controversial and the source of much strife and division over a number of years. So therefore there are likely to be many individuals affected by this bill not least the authors of the most recent complaint to the Regulations Review Committee who deserve to be treated with natural justice and due process. The rushed process followed with this bill I believe risks creating a new injustice that will only compound the strife and bitterness now so ingrained in this sector. Given that this bill is designed primarily to put a stop to that we should be very careful about risking compounding the sense of unfairness and injustice in that sector. 
It may very well be that we need to fix the messy situation that the board has now found itself in. The Green Party could support fair thoroughly drafted legislation to achieve this provided we were satisfied that a proper process has been followed. But we cannot be confident of that at present. We have indicated to the Minister our willingness to support changes like those proposed in the bill but our concern is about the time frame as proposed. Retrospective legislation should not be entered into lightly. It should be very rare and when it occurs it should be meticulously drafted and scrutinised. In our view the bill at the moment does not meet this test. The 1-week select committee time frame proposed would not allow for the appropriate level of scrutiny for a retrospective piece of legislation and the Green Party therefore cannot support it.