Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker, for recognising me for the call. I have to confess that I am struggling to remember the first 8 minutes of my speech and just quite where I left off in my speech at the end of the 8 minutes, because it has been such a long time since this interrupted third reading of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill commenced. We continue, despite interruptions, to oppose this bill. In the end, although we were open to finding a solution to the continuing problems that have plagued the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board over the collection of the disciplinary levy, in particular, and, since 2010, the offences fee for the prosecution of unlicensed practitioners, we have not managed to arrive at that conclusion.

We are going to be left with the validation of an illegal fee that was collected, an illegal charge upon tradespeople, which is continuing to aid the complete exodus of our tradespeople—our plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers—from New Zealand to Australia. This bill is not going to assist the plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers in any measure, and we cannot—cannot—support it. Thank you.

The Green Party will be opposing the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill because, quite frankly and quite simply, it is just not fair. There are some important issues in this debate, but it is not fair to make this legislation retrospective and therefore allow the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board to continue to hold on to the fees that have been paid to the board unlawfully for some time.

Like the Minister for Building and Construction and like other parties in the House, we do understand that there is a problem with the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006 in that it did not give the proper lawful authority for the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board to collect the levies and fees that it did for the purpose of prosecuting unlicensed practitioners. It does appear that that 2006 legislation was intended to provide that lawful authority, but it did not, and that is a mistake that does get made from time to time. We also agree that the board should be able to prosecute unlicensed practitioners. It is important for industry standards to have a body that is able to do that, and the fact that there are fees levied for that purpose is not unreasonable either.

So, in principle, we agree with the purpose, the intention, of this legislation, but the difficulty is that although we could have supported a bill that does this for the future, we simply cannot bring ourselves to vote for a bill that makes this power retrospective. We have communicated that with the Minister so he understands what our position is.

There has been, I understand, a long history of grievance and dispute between the members and the board about the payment of those fees and the use of those fees. It is, quite frankly, very poor practice when members who make a financial contribution to this board have to go to the Ombudsman in order to find out how that money is being used and what it is being spent on and to make sure that the purpose for which the money was given is actually being played out. So there is a whole history here around plumbers and gasfitters—the people who are affected by this bill—working very hard to seek a decision that the legislation does not provide lawful authority and to seek a remedy for that.

They have been everywhere that you can go—the Regulations Review Committee twice, the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General. They have spent considerable time bringing this issue to the attention of the legislature, so, quite rightly, the legislature is responding. But it is not fair to say now that those people who have had the burden of paying an unlawful fee, have had the burden of trying to find out—against, it appears, the board’s practice—how that fee was being used and what was being paid for, should then continue to lose money as a result of that unlawful action and the poor actions of the board. Why should they now be required by Parliament to give up the money that was unlawfully paid, given that they have spent so much time and effort to bring this to our attention and that it has taken so long to do so?

So, in short, the workers and the families who are affected by this legislation and its retrospective implementation have fought extremely hard to bring this to our attention. They have incurred costs in order to do so. Now that we are about to try to fix the primary problem, we should not demand that they continue to pay. So on that basis the Green Party does not support this bill. We do not support the retrospective aspects of this legislation. We think that it is unfair to make those demands on those workers and their families. Thank you.

Before I start my call on this particular bill, the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill, I want to pass on my condolences for the loss yesterday from the building and construction sector of Mr Bill Smith. He was probably one of the most lively and known characters in the building and construction sector. He actually ended up with the title of “Mr Pink Batts” at one stage because of the company he had worked for and for bringing in insulation. Bill died yesterday, and I just want to pass on my condolences, as Minister, to his family.

This is a bill that I would like to take the House through the specifics of, and then get to the issue that I think concerned Metiria Turei more than anything, and that is the element of retrospectivity. What happened was that in 2006 the Labour Government of the day passed the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act. That thing has not been without trouble. Michael Cullen, while he was Minister, sacked two entire Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Boards. So it is a bit rich to come along and say that somehow it is Maurice Williamson who is causing these troubles. These troubles precede Michael Cullen; it goes a long way back. I would actually say that now the new board and the people we have managed to get on there—including a character called Peter Jackson, who is not the same Peter Jackson who most people in the House would know—are working quite well.

The problem with the Act was that it had some mistake in its wording. I have gone and looked at the drafting instructions and I have even looked at the intention of the bill and I have even looked at the speeches of the then Minister Michael Cullen. It was quite clear, as members of this House would expect it to be, that the Act was to allow plumbers and gasfitters to hold to account poor practice and bad behaviour of not just registered and licensed practitioners but anybody else trying to work in plumbing or gasfitting or drainlaying who actually may have no licence. It would be hellishly dangerous if someone just happens to arrive in New Zealand, walk off a plane, have no qualifications, and say “I might have a crack at gasfitting.” The wording in the Act was wrong, and the wording actually allowed the board to go only after licensed practitioners. It was a mistake. It was not intended.

Think about it in another industry. How would we feel if the Civil Aviation Authority was entitled to go only after licensed pilots and prosecute them for poor behaviour? If someone said: “I’m going to have a crack at flying a Boeing 747 and I’m not a licensed pilot—you can’t touch me.”, everyone would just laugh at you. You would say it was just ridiculous. Fred is up there flying a Boeing 747 and the only reason you cannot touch him is because he is not a licensed pilot. Or in the medical fraternity if a guy said: “Well, I’ve got no qualifications at all, so I’m going to have a crack at brain surgery this afternoon. Now, because I’m not a registered doctor, you can’t touch me.” It is just crazy.

The board is there to protect human safety, public safety, and its role is to go out and catch and prosecute people who are performing poor practice, and that was the intention at the time. Ask Michael Cullen—ask him. That was the intention that was in the drafting instructions, but the Labour Government got the wording wrong. I feel a bit miffed that as Minister I am now trying to fix that and bring it into line with every other industry sector, so that the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board can legally go after both registered, licensed practitioners and unlicensed practitioners.

Somehow the Opposition has decided it is going to oppose it. I understand that the Green’s main opposition to the bill is that it is retrospective. Well, I am really looking forward to the next time a local government rates validation bill appears on the Order Paper. Oh, Lianne Dalziel might be really interested in what needs to be done with Christchurch. I will be watching with great interest. If Labour says “Oh, well, it’s not fair to make those rates that have been collected for 5 or 6 years illegal because the wording was wrong in the Act or the wording was wrong in the rates, and now we are going to pass a validation bill through this House.”, which we do regularly to retrospectively validate an action that was thought to have been the case but was wrong, I am going to watch it. I have actually got a big list of the validation legislation that Labour members have voted for over the years, retrospectively validating a whole range of things. They never got up once and said: “Oh, well, I’m going to watch Lianne Dalziel with great interest for the Christchurch validation.” I want to hear her get up and say “Well, it’s not fair to keep all those rates from those poor people in Christchurch, because the rates were not set properly. We should give them back all that money from over those years, and start only from now.”

Well, I am going to bet you a dollar to a doughnut that Lianne Dalziel will vote happily to have some rates validation, and the Labour Party in Opposition will vote happily for a whole range of other validating legislation. This is actually even more sickening, because it was the Labour Government that cocked up. It was Labour that got the legislation wrong. It was not me. I would actually be going to them cap in hand if I had got the 2006 Act wrong and saying “Look, I’m really sorry about this, I really screwed up. I wrote the wording wrong in the Act. Please help me.” That is what I would do. I would say: “Please help me. Is there a way we can get through this?”. But it was not us. It was them. It was the Labour Government of 2006 that got the wrong wording, and now all this tiny little bill does is validate the fees that have been collected over those years since 2006, because they are illegal—just like with rates in Christchurch, just like with a whole lot of other rating validation bills and a whole lot of other local bills and things that we see through this House on a regular basis.

The fees were illegal, and if they stayed illegal, the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board would be in liquidation and would need to have millions of dollars from the taxpayer to bail it out. I say that is not right. I say that the individual people who work in the profession—that is, the plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers—have got an obligation, like pilots do with their licensing and like doctors do through their fees and so on, to pay for a body to be there to guarantee public safety and guarantee standards.

So I repeat to the listeners tonight—to that adoring drive time audience in Auckland who listens to me while they are stuck on the motorway heading home—that this bill is so trivial it is not funny. All it says is that in 2006 the Labour Government passed legislation where it thought that the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board could levy its members and use that money to go after both registered, licensed practitioners and unlicensed practitioners. The wording was wrong. Since 2006 those fees that have been collected from those practitioners have been used illegally. We have found that out only when a handful of disgruntled people took it right through to the Regulations Review Committee and so on. I actually said that there is only one way through this. We really need to validate what was expected.

So, again, I repeat that I am one of the strongest opponents of retrospective legislation in this House. I hate it. But I vote for it every time if it is trying only to validate what everybody thought was the case back there anyway. So if we were passing retrospective legislation today to make the tax rates 60c in the dollar back to 2005, I would be opposed because everybody knew what the expected tax rate was. But if we are doing this, which is validating something we expected—in fact, something Labour expected, and then we came to power 2 years later and just carried on with that expectation. All we are doing is just telling the vast bulk of the practitioners—in fact, every plumber, gasfitter, and drainlayer whom I have talked to up and down the country has said “I thought you always could.” I said: “Well, we did too, but it turned out there is just some mistake in the wording, just like in the Christchurch rating thing.”

So I repeat again: I want the next Labour speaker or the next Green speaker to say that when they get the next validating legislation of some mistake, like a rates validation bill, they will make sure they vote against it because they are opposed to retrospectivity.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Like Damien O’Connor.

Like Damien O’Connor. Well, actually, I could name any of the members over there. As I have said to the previous person in the chair, the Assistant Speaker, but I will say it again to you: I bet you a dollar to a doughnut—or, in your case, Mr Deputy Speaker, a crayfish to a whitebait—that when the next validating bill of any sort comes through this House, they will be like lemmings racing over a cliff to vote for it.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on the third reading of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will not support the passing of this legislation. There is a grave injustice occurring here. Hard-working New Zealand tradespeople are being required to pay for something that was illegally taken from them by their industry’s board. Levies collected by the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board come only from people who are registered under the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act. In respect of the fees set by the board, the main point of contention is the disciplinary levy. This levy is set by the board to fund the cost of complaint and disciplinary actions against people who refuse to pay levies. The disciplinary levy imposed by the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board was collected illegally. This bill aims to make that lawful.

Experienced plumbers, drainlayers, and gasfitters have chosen to boycott the undemocratic process followed by the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board and have chosen to boycott those fees imposed on them. Industry members took their complaints to the Ombudsman because they considered that the board’s actions were not fair and that there was a total lack of consultation. The Ombudsman, in his report on their complaints, stated that the fee is not justified and also imposes a new form of tax on those experienced plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers. The Ombudsman has made two recommendations, but only the first one was included in the ministerial officials’ briefing. The Ombudsman recommended: “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 … legislation to validate the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (Fees) Notice 2010 as it relates to the disciplinary levy;”.

The second recommendation from the Ombudsman was not included in the briefing. That recommends: “To the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (regardless of the outcome of 1 above), that it enter into discussions with representatives of persons registered under the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 2006 to achieve a satisfactory arrangement with persons who have paid excess amounts of levy under the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (Fees) Notice 2010 in respect of the disciplinary levy.” So it is very disappointing that the deliberations at the Government Administration Committee did not include the full recommendations from the Ombudsman. The Minister for Building and Construction has conveniently omitted this important part of the Ombudsman’s judgment. It is very clear, in the Ombudsman’s words, that this “is an unlawful levy, a tax, that the Board was not authorise to impose.” Further, to quote the Ombudsman, the board failed “to consult adequately before making the [continuing professional development] Notices.”

The Minister for Building and Construction would have us believe that if this legislation is not enacted to secure the $600,000 in levies, the board will be bankrupted. This is a smokescreen. The board receives constant revenue from registration and licensing fees. What it is doing now, through imposing these disciplinary levies and offences fees, is driving registered plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers away from the organisation. They have lost faith in the board and the whole structure. That is not good for the industry and it undermines the whole profession. Passing this legislation will compound the situation and will drive an even bigger wedge between the board and a large section of plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers. The Minister has not looked into other ways of finding a sensible solution that would appease all parties. This is a retrospective piece of bad legislation, which New Zealand First cannot support.

As always, it is a pleasure to follow such a distinguished MP as Barbara Stewart. She is a lady who has wisdom and knowledge. If only she would break that sort of New Zealand First mould of being unable to vote for anything. It was not as bad as “Dismal Denis”. It was an interesting speech but it concentrated on the minutiae of who said what and when. I must say that I liked the Minister for Building and Construction’s speech because he got straight to the heart of it that what happened was a mistake. We have to be big enough to recognise our mistakes. Even though we do not like them, we have to be big enough to correct them.

The Minister made mention of Labour members saying that they are opposed to retrospective legislation. Well, I am sure it is that most of us are. I wonder whether they will hold to that, as my friend and parliamentary colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor progresses his bill, the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Is he a Labour MP?

Well, he is a Labour MP. He is not comfortable with it, but he feels the bill is the right thing to do. So I will be interested to see what his colleagues on that side of the House do.

All that happens with this Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill is that it tidies up the legislation around the funding of the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board so that—and this is the kicker; this is the kicker, Barbara, this is the kicker—it can effectively do its job of protecting public safety. That is the most important bit. The bill also validates the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board’s disciplinary levy, which funds investigations and prosecutions of plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers, not just the licensed variety but the cowboys and the cowgirls, those who think they can do a favour for a friend by fixing up their plumbing, gas, or drains, and who are practising without the proper skills and qualifications.

These breaches, the shoddy work done by unskilled workers, could lead to illness. If anyone thinks that drainlaying is unimportant, think again. If anyone thinks that plumbing is unimportant, think again. Good plumbing has done more for longevity than medicine ever did. Medicine corrects things once you are ill. Plumbing stops you being ill.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: More than the internet.

Far more than the internet.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Where would we be without the common bog?

Minister, I bow to your superior consideration of these matters.

The disciplinary levy was the subject of a complaint to the Regulations Review Committee on the basis that the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board did not have the legislative authority to require registered people to pay for prosecutions against non-registered people. It is as silly as that, and members on the other side are saying that we should make an issue of this. It is somebody else’s fight—it is somebody else’s fight; it is not ours. Ours is to legislate and to legislate properly, and that did not happen in this particular case.

I can speak with some experience in this. I have been doing plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers bills ever since I came into Parliament in 2005. I was a member of the Commerce Committee. I think Katherine Rich was the chair—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: So it’s your fault—it’s your fault.

No, this is not our committee’s fault, because the bill we are having to correct was passed subsequently. It was a drafting error under a Labour Government. I am not concerned with that. The Minister is not concerned with that. We have not made this a political issue.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: That’s all he talked about.

No, we are not interested in making this a political issue, I say to the member the Hon Ruth Dyson. She knows me better than that. We have discussed this at the committee. No, no, the fact that National is taking a very open-handed, earnest, and honest attitude towards the whole thing is simply the way we do things. I do not recommend to anybody that we get into other people’s arguments, and that is the danger that the Opposition is getting close to.

Another thing, of course, is that we recognise in others that which we least like about ourselves. A mistake has occurred. As the Minister said, had this been our mistake, I am quite sure that you would have the Minister saying “Gosh! I’ve made a mistake or a mistake was made in the drafting under my watch. Can you please work with me so that we can sort this out in the best possible way for the people concerned.” That is what we would be saying. Instead of which, it would seem, and I could not quite follow it at the Committee level, I could not quite see where the argument was coming from, and I am almost coming to the conclusion—reluctantly, colleagues, reluctantly—that this has a political content to it rather than a practical one.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Say it’s not true.

I think that—well, I would like to say that it is not true. We wait to hear other speeches from other members to see whether they can rid my mind of that suspicion. In the meantime, I commend this bill to the House. It is an important one, it does the right thing for the right people, and it does the right thing for the industry.

Can I first of all acknowledge the contribution of the member Chris Auchinvole on the Government Administration Committee, as well as Mr Deputy Speaker himself, and Kanwaljit Bakshi, who, along with my colleague Trevor Mallard and Green member Holly Walker, considered this Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill. At the time of its referral to the—I did acknowledge you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as one of the members of the committee. I specifically acknowledged you.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: And your other Labour member.

I think Mr Auchinvole is losing his attention span. I certainly referred to the Hon Trevor Mallard.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: No, it wasn’t Trevor.

It was Raymond Huo—quite right, thank you. When this bill was originally referred to the select committee in March of this year, the Minister for Building and Construction asked our committee to have 1 week—1 week—to receive the briefing on the bill from officials, whom we could not appoint until we had the meeting, and within that same week to call for and hear submissions, and within that same week to deliberate and report back to the House. That was the urgency that was accorded to this bill in March of this year—we were given 1 week.

I went back to the Minister for Building and Construction, the Hon Maurice Williamson. I said to him that I thought that that was not really appropriate or reasonable, and he agreed. We extended the length of time the select committee had, from 1 week to 2 weeks—we had 2 weeks—and in that time the committee appointed its advisers, received its briefing, called for and received submissions, heard submissions, and deliberated. We did our work in the best way possible. We took this issue seriously because we understand the value to our public health and safety of having the regulation of the practice of plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers. This is actually not a small issue; this is a really important issue. If we have people performing that work who are not qualified to do it, then we can have serious health and safety issues, and none of us on the committee wanted that. So we did take the issue seriously, thinking of it as being within that public health and safety frame.

But what we were asked to do was to really consider the fact that this matter has been considered by the Regulations Review Committee, it has been considered by the Ombudsman, and it has been considered by the Auditor-General, and I do not think that any of those bodies are lightweight or insubstantial. The Regulations Review Committee is rigorous. The Auditor-General is completely independent and has a rigorous process, as does the Ombudsman. All three of those bodies came to the conclusion that this process was wrong. The Auditor-General recommended alternatives. Our committee discussed at length—given the short time we had; it was not as long as we might have preferred it to be—how this problem could be fixed once and for all, and it is not my view that retrospectively validating fees and levies that have been ruled to be inconsistent with the law by the Regulations Review Committee, the Auditor-General, and the Ombudsman is the way to fix the problem.

Chris Auchinvole, who just resumed his seat before I took the call, noted how often he has been part of discussions to try to resolve this matter. He said that if the Hon Maurice Williamson had made a mistake—you know, it is hardly imaginable, but if he had made a mistake—then he would front up and say: “I’ve made a mistake.”, and would put his hands across the water and try to fix it. Well, actually, that is what we did. We said to the Hon Maurice Williamson: “You can do your political point-scoring as much as you like,”—his entire third reading speech was political point-scoring—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Oh!

—clearly, Chris Auchinvole missed it—“but we actually want to fix this in a way that ensures that the public health and safety issues are resolved and that is fair to the plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers, and this is not the way to do it.” So, on that basis, and actually with great sadness, to be honest, because I do not want this bill—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Here we go—here’s the kicker.

—to come back again, we are going to vote against it.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: There we go.

The member knows that. He was at the committee when we made that determination.

It is not actually within the scope of this bill, but I also want to draw the House’s attention to other concerns that were raised, and I want to give our commitment as a party to working with other parties throughout Parliament to address the issues that were raised by submitters. They raised a very significant issue about the lack of transparency and accountability. So money is being collected from registered tradespeople for a purpose that has now been determined as being outside the law—this is what this bill is going to alter—but the accusation has been made in the committee that that is not what those fees and levies are used for entirely. There are other purposes for which those fees and levies are used. That is the accusation that was laid. I would like the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board to improve its accountability and transparency so that all doubt about the use of moneys collected can be put to bed, and at the moment I do not have that confidence. So that is the first challenge I would like to give to the Minister and to the board.

We were told that the board collects just under $35,000 a week, and yet last year only 13 people were prosecuted. That seems to be quite a large amount of money for a small number of prosecutions, and, again, the accountability and transparency of the collection of fees and levies—the use of the money and exactly what cost what—would remove any doubt about that. We want to be confident that the fees and levies that are collected are used for the purpose for which they were collected, and at the moment there was certainly some doubt raised with the committee. There is an extraordinary amount of money reported to us that is being spent on legal fees, despite the board having in-house lawyers. Again, if the board was a bit more open with the members about why it might have needed at some stage to engage counsel from outside its permanent staff, then there would not be such suspicion about it. I do not think a board should operate with its members in a way that creates suspicion. It should work in the opposite direction.

The Minister has, on several occasions in the House and, indeed, again this evening, said that this bill will bring the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board in line with other boards that regulate the activities of tradespeople. That is not what the select committee was told. The select committee was told that there is a myriad of ways in which boards operate, and I, frankly, do not think that that is very satisfactory, but I think it is a misrepresentation for the Minister to say that this would bring the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board in line with other boards, because that is certainly not the advice that we have taken. In fact, with the licensed building practitioners and the electricians, we were specifically advised that they have an entirely different method of funding. The idea that the board would be insolvent is a bit of a nonsense. It is less than half a million dollars that it would have required, and actually, now, because of the passing of time, there is no such danger and no such risk of insolvency to the board.

The final point I want to make is that I think that the board has carried on, despite the Regulations Review Committee’s ruling, despite the Auditor-General’s comments, and despite the Ombudsman’s determination that the board has acted in a way that I could only describe as arrogant. Those bodies determined that the board should not continue with the practice in the way it did, but instead of desperately seeking a solution to resolve the issue, it went—as if it was the only option—to the Minister and said: “We require retrospective legislation to validate the collection of fees and levies.” I do not think that that is the only answer, and I do not think that this is the best answer. I think that we should have sat around the table with the relevant bodies and tried to reach a solution that would, as I said earlier, guarantee the New Zealand public the health and safety that we require of plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers. They are doing an important job. There are high risks. Chris Auchinvole was absolutely correct when he talked about the public health contribution made by these tradespeople, as opposed to medicine. He was absolutely 100 percent correct with that, but we also wanted a solution to this issue that was fair.

Unfortunately, retrospectively validating legislation that has been ruled by the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman, and the Regulations Review Committee as inconsistent with the law is not the best answer.

I am pleased to take a call on the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill in its third and, obviously, final reading. Although I did not sit on the Government Administration Committee, I have followed this bill with interest, particularly as I have had to prepare to speak on it but also because various constituents have come to my office to raise questions around why this is happening. We have heard from a number of people, particularly from this side, around the structure or why this had come about. We have heard, I think, legitimate thoughts and concerns from the other side too, but a lot of it keeps away from the real issue, which is that the Government must act. The Government has to act. I am very conscious that the likes of the Ombudsman and others can provide opinions and so forth—very valid. That is their job. But it is Parliament’s duty, prerogative, and ability, of course, to act and to make this amendment occur, go through Parliament, so that we can provide the safety, the security—the health and safety—that is required.

As we have heard, this comes through basically an error in drafting in the original bill. When you look back through Hansard and the debates at the time, it is very clear—very clear—that the intention was for the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board to be able to prosecute those who were not registered, to levy its members, and to do disciplinary action, but also to prosecute those people who are not appropriately registered but are undertaking plumbing, gasfitting, and so forth. It was very appropriate. However, it was found not to be legal. It was found not to be legal. It has left the board in a difficult position. In many ways it has left the country, therefore, in a difficult position.

This bill is basically aligning the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board with what many other boards and similar structures do. We heard from Minister Williamson around how it operates. I acknowledge what the previous speaker, Ruth Dyson, was saying before she resumed her seat. There are different models, but ultimately the boards review, through regulation, their industry. They work with the industry. They maintain their standards. They act where they can. This bill is really a simple opportunity—a simple opportunity—to make legal and bring about the original intention of the bill: that levies can be collected to ensure that the high quality and standard that we expect, and have come to experience, from our plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers around New Zealand can be maintained; that this board will be able to set its levies and take disciplinary action of its members where required; and, most important, as this amendment bill seeks to do, that we allow the board to take action against those people who are not licensed and not registered. I support this bill and commend it to the House.

It is a pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill. It is the first time I have spoken on this bill, but I have watched with great interest as it has done its circular dance through the process.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I’d like to see that.

Would you like to see a circular dance, Minister?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How does it go?

Oh, pretty good, pretty good. I do notice, actually, that this had its first reading in Parliament on 14 March 2013 and it was really urgent then. It was referred to the Government Administration Committee, chaired by my wonderful colleague Ruth Dyson, who does a fantastic job. I think that what the select committee has expressed concern about was the fact that it was given, initially, 1 week to consider this bill, because it was so urgent. It had to be back in place, I think, by 13 April so it could be applied. Of course, that did not happen. Then it was extended by 2 weeks. We have seen this come and go on the Order Paper, time and time again. From my perspective, it has been a circular dance because I have had my name on the speaking list for this several times in the third reading, and I have thought: “Well, what am I going to say about the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill?”. I have thought about it and put a lot of work into thinking about it. And then, lo and behold, it drops off the Order Paper again. Lo and behold, it is not there. So I have finally got my great moment to talk about this bill.

I am very interested in the comments that were made by the Hon Maurice Williamson, who I thought seemed a little bit peeved, actually—a little bit peeved—in his comments. Look, the truth is that in the Committee stage I heard my colleague Raymond Huo offering real assistance to the Government. We were here to help on this bill. We were willing to help make it workable and make it something that we could live with, but guess what happened? What happened was that Supplementary Order Paper 204, which was put up by Raymond Huo, was voted down by the Government. So, look, the Hon Maurice Williamson should not be peeved, because the Opposition definitely tried to help on this bill. We definitely tried to do our best to make it work and to make it acceptable.

This bill amends the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006 to validate a disciplinary levy imposed under that Act between 1 April 2007 and 11 January 2012 and an offences fee prescribed by the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board. Then there is another aim, which is to correct the underlying problem by amending the Act to provide that board with a levy power to fund its functions and to institute prosecutions against persons for the breach of any Act or regulation relating to sanitary plumbing, gasfitting, or drainlaying. The Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board does play a very important role. Its job is to protect the health and safety of the public by regulating and ensuring the competencies of persons carrying out sanitary plumbing, gasfitting, and drainlaying work. It is a really important job, and I have got a lot of sympathy with the plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers who have had a great deal of concern about this bill, because they are skilled tradespeople. They are people who deserve to be listened to by this Parliament. I know that many members, including me, have been lobbied heavily about this particular bill and about the concerns, and, as I said, they are not being particularly listened to by this Government.

As I said, the Labour Opposition is opposing the bill. It is around the issues of retrospectivity, but, as much as anything, it is also around the fact of the process. The process was poor. It was far too short. We tried to help with a Supplementary Order Paper, which would have actually provided a solution to the continuing problems that have plagued the board over many years. We have a lot of sympathy with this, but what happened, as I said, was that in the Committee stage the Government was not prepared to accept the Labour Opposition’s help once again. Once again, it refused our help. So I am sorry, but Labour opposes this bill.