Fellow Practitioner Issue 165 Dated 26 July 2013

[Wal]

• Tweet

Why doesn't the PGD Board spend more time helping the industry instead of finding legal ways to weasel around the intent of the Act? Why does the ITO simply provide assessments instead of training? Why does the Minister interpret the Act in a manner that he has a personal consumer protection Board?

The PGD Board has simply become and enforcement agency for the government.

We believe the time has come for practitioners to take BACK CONTROL of the industry and form its own Industry Board consisting of people FROM the industry FOR the industry. We don't care if you are a Federation Member or a Master Plumbers member, or not a member of either industry group. It's time for those that WANT our industry to return to its rightful status to step up and be counted!

A must read to help change the future

Linkback: https://forum.plumbers.nz/fellow-practitioners-update/41/fellow-practitioner-issue-165-dated-26-july-2013/1516/

[robbo]

• Tweet

hi guys, another very informative F.P.today,the board should be ashamed at all their dodgy dealing, do we know if they are still a charity? cheers
...
With regard to the Registered Charity status of the Board we seem to remember Mr Bickers denying there being any Fringe Benefit tax issues. We read recently that the 2005 annual financial reports were delayed due to the Board getting charitable status which entitled the Board to a refund on GST paid on the "Fringe Benefit Tax". The accounts show the Board received a Fringe Benefit Refund of $173,498 for the year ended 31 March 2005. Remember also the money now being spent on appealing the Charities Commission decision, tens of thousands of dollars (and this is only coming from one place – money YOU have paid. We noted also that in 2004, $122,686 was spent on "projects", and the projects were for "registration, licensing, and the Board". When the books were reviewed the reviewer was of the opinion the information provided was not sufficiently transparent to allow the reviewer to make a judgement on the nature of this "project" spending.

[Wal]

• Tweet

Hi Robbo

As far as we know the Judge still hasn't put out her decision. We will follow up on it in-case it all happened and no one told us.

[robbo]

• Tweet

hi guys/Wal, yes why would the board tell us anything, cheers

[Jaxcat]

• Tweet

I am willing to step forward for the Prosecution Advisory Groups.  I think this is a fantastic idea and I can't believe that it hasn't happened sooner.  Power comes with working together and I see that these groups will simply provide some information and perhaps advice to assist those who may be subject to less than professional investigations.  In the end lawyers don't understand the intricateness of the trades and will simply bleed practitioners pockets dry.  I'm not saying you won't need one, I'm just saying they don't know about 'stuff" that practitioners know about. 

I just hope that those who the Board have decided to have a look at feel that they can step forward into the sun and ask for help before they say anything.

[Badger]

• Tweet

Count me in....

[gordyplum]

• Tweet

I just noticed on seek that the board are advertising for a new solicitor.  Hope that they won't have to much to do, can't help but wonder why they need one in house.

[Jaxcat]

• Tweet

One in house mate!  You are kidding, they already have about 5.  They must like to travel in gaggles and keep the numbers up.
They just keep on thinking of ways to increase their expenses and costs so that they can keep upping the levies and fees.
The sick part of the joke is that they outsource the actual disciplinary hearings.

[robbo]

• Tweet

hi guys, will he have to go through the`Fit and Proper Person` test? cheers