Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Bill

I am really delighted to take the first call on the previously non-existent Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Bill. When we flick through Part 5, we can hardly find a single page that has not been amended. So I am delighted to say that the Commerce Committee is indeed a very hard-working and responsible select committee—all the more so because of the National Party members on the committee. We have actually gone through Part 5 with a fine-tooth comb, even though it deals largely with matters of definition. I will share with members some of those distinctive details. I am raising them because the Minister the Hon Harry Duynhoven is in the chair. I am glad about that, because I know he will take them quite seriously.

For example, we actually spent quite a bit of time on clause 69, “Exemption for sanitary plumbing in rural areas”, and on clause 70, “Provisions relating to alteration of boundaries of local authority districts”, and, ultimately, we ran out of time. The officials could not quite get all the background information that would have enabled the select committee members to understand why the exemption relating to sanitary plumbing in rural areas is to be continued. Do we care less about people in rural districts than in urban areas, or is it the practical issue that if we impose the same requirements in rural and urban areas, then rural people might not get plumbing, etc., done? And why is it that the boundary of a local authority district would be subject to the type of exemption set out in clause 70?

So I point out to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, that although the select committee worked diligently on the issues, we regret that because of the time limit some of the important issues have not been tackled. I first register for the benefit of the Minister that there is unfinished work for him to champion. [Interruption] I am not sure why there is all this movement in the Chamber; I would like members to respect the plumbers and the drainlayers, etc., who appeared in front of the select committee to make submissions. I promise that we will raise the unfinished business so that the Minister can continue to look into it in the future, given that those exemptions have not been explained to us properly because the officials said that their records did not go back very far and they could not really get to the bottom of the issue in the time available. So, in the meantime, the select committee has accepted that those exemptions will continue. But, certainly, at some appropriate future time, we need to get to the bottom of what the valid reasons for those exemptions may be.

Some of the other exemptions that we have raised are good ones. For example, apprentices are exempt during training. We have accepted that it is very practical for them not to be licensed or registered while they are going through their study.

I think the Minister will appreciate that the select committee has worked diligently to improve on these now separated bills, given that National opposed the first reading of the Energy Safety Review Bill.

I rise to speak to Part 5 of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Bill. As we have said tonight, its provisions began as part of the Energy Safety Review Bill and morphed, as members know, into the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Bill. Before I rose to speak tonight, I was thinking about the stages we have gone through on this bill and the various plumbers and electricians who came before the Commerce Committee. I cast my eyes through the telephone book here to see which plumbers from Hawke’s Bay will be sitting tonight with their ears to the radio, listening to the debate on this bill. They are the likes of J J O’Connor—the Minister in the chair, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, may know some of these guys—my own brother, who owns Total Plumbing and Irrigation Ltd, Rigby Plumbing, and Hagen and Owen Ltd. Those are all core guys who are part of the Hawke’s Bay network. In particular, I pay my respects to E G Wall, a plumber from Hawke’s Bay who passed away recently. He had had over 40 years’ service in the plumbing industry in Hawke’s Bay, and he will be difficult to replace. It was guys like E G Wall whom we heard talk before the select committee about some of the issues they would have to face, which I will talk about in relation to Part 6 and Part 7, regarding licensing and registration.

I will step back to Part 5, which deals with the purpose of the bill and gives a number of definitions for the legislation. We spent much time on deciding what the definition of “drain” and “drainlaying” would be, and on discussing the meaning of “gasfitting”, where a gas supply would start and where it would finish, and the meaning of “sanitary plumbing” and various aspects of that part of the bill. Those matters are hardly earth-shattering but are important. In coming back to the purposes of the bill, I say this legislation will replace the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act of 1976. It covers the registering, licensing, and disciplining of plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers, and it contains mechanisms designed to assure the public that people engaged in the provision of sanitary plumbing, gasfitting, and drainlaying services are competent to undertake the work.

When we first came to the Commerce Committee, a number of submissions were before the committee, and those submissions were one of the key reasons for this bill being split from the Energy Safety Review Bill. The likes of George M Todd, craftsman plumber, came before the select committee and told us he strongly opposed the introduction of competency-based licensing and the move away from registration-based licences. In fact, that gentleman strongly opposed the Energy Safety Review Bill. He felt that it gave too much power to the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board. That was one of the first reasons for splitting the bill. As Minister Duynhoven announced earlier, there had been very poor consultation from the board back to the plumbing fraternity, so we made the decision to split this legislation from the Energy Safety Review Bill. That meant we could go back and consult the industry in more detail.

The second reason for splitting the bill off from the Energy Safety Review Bill has not been covered in much detail tonight. That was the issue around the relationship between the industry training organisation and the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board, which, at that point in time was the subject of a ministerial inquiry, undertaken by Hazel Armstrong. But there were two major concerns in that regard. The first was the level of pass rates that were coming out of the industry training organisation. The commentary on the bill states that in 2005 only 11 percent of national certificate holders who sat the final qualifying exam set by the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board passed that exam. That was down from a pass rate of 39 percent in 2003. So the second concern was that it was very clear that there had been a breakdown in the relationship between the board and the industry training organisation. The board was putting in a capstone examination and it had failed to talk closely with the industry training organisation. The relationship was so bad that the industry training organisation was not putting through the plumbers at the level that was needed. Those reasons, together, meant there was a change to the original bill.

I was in my office listening to the debate and found it so enthralling that I thought I would come down and make a contribution. The reason is that I have some experience with the plumbing industry—and I declare a conflict of interest upfront—in that I own a company that manufactures hot-water cylinders. My company has been in business for 45 years, and my association with the plumbing industry and the history of my company in that association is one that deserves recognition.

Registration as prescribed in the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Bill is overdue, but that is not to tarnish the reputation of those people who have been in the industry for a long time. In fact, it provides them with the due credit they deserve, because here is an industry, if there ever has been one, that is worthy of our respect. Anyone who has had something go wrong with their plumbing recognises the need not only to get someone who is competent to fix it but also, as an added advantage, to get someone who is registered and is able to do the job and can give that guarantee of quality service that the community deserves. That is the type of tradesperson we in this country respect.

I heard the Minister say in an earlier debate that he is an electrician by trade, and I think he takes pride in the fact that he has that recognition. Is it not as reasonable to give that recognition to the plumbing industry, as well? So here is a bill that, in my view, is long overdue.

When I had the opportunity to sit on the Commerce Committee on the bill, I was very impressed with the way members of Parliament interacted. They were taking the issue extremely seriously. The contribution from members around the table was one that gave me confidence that the parliamentary process does, at times, work well. Of course, I think the lead was coming from the National members on the select committee. My colleagues there were taking the issues extremely seriously. They were putting issues on the table and saying that we needed to work around them to make sure we structured a bill that would work, not for the time being but for the longer term.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There is too much idle chatter going on. It is very disconcerting for the member who is trying to address the Committee.

BRIAN CONNELL: I apologise for my idle chatter, Mr Chairperson. I will give you something a little more specific.

One issue in the select committee really triggered my interest—that is, the lack of apprentices who have qualified through the registration board. That really did trip my interest. I know that members of the select committee took that issue extremely seriously. Some of the statistics I saw showed that pass rates were as low as 11 percent in terms of qualifications. That in itself is a real indictment on the way the industry was being structured, and something had to be done about that. I congratulate the committee on taking that issue head-on.

I know that the Minister takes these issues extremely seriously, as well, and it might be something he would like to take a call on and explain how we will do more about tightening up registration around the plumbing industry so that the competence I have talked about can be captured in perpetuity. I thank you for your indulgence, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I think it is a pity that Katherine Rich, the chairperson of the Commerce Committee, is not here this evening, because—

Simon Power: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I know what the member is going to say. The Minister knows he cannot refer to the absence of a member. All of us, at some time or another, have urgent public business to attend to.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. You are quite right. Can I say that it is a pity that Katherine Rich has not taken a call this evening, because she would have added considerably to the debate and maybe even have been able to help some of her colleagues who seem to have had a little amnesia in regard to the processes here. I say to Brian Connell that I greatly appreciated his comments. One learns something new every day. I did not know, for example, Brian—even though I have known you for a fair while—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Use the member’s full name, please.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I did not know that the member was in the business of making hot-water cylinders, many of which I have probably installed without realising they came from his company.

The issue of the relationship between the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board and the Industry Training Organisation was one of the really difficult ones that had to be considered during the process of this bill. The registration and competence issue that the member referred to is a really important one. First is the basic qualification, which is necessary. Secondly, it is necessary to ensure ongoing competence, and I think the member who has just spoken was the first speaker in this debate from his side of the Chamber who actually recognised that a very important feature of this bill is to ensure ongoing competence.

To Pansy Wong I say that, yes, the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Bill was split out from the original Energy Safety Review Bill, but the bills were kept as companion bills. If one looks at the two bills together, one will see that Parts 1 to 4 remain with the original bill and that Part 5 onwards becomes the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Bill. It does indicate that they will be reassembled some time. We also had the view—and on one occasion I sat in the Commerce Committee and took part in a round-table discussion, which I thought was a very valuable thing to do—over the issues about how we managed the dysfunctional relationships that were in the plumbing, gasfitting, and drainlaying industry. Whereas the electrical part of the bill was ready to proceed—the electrical industry and the gas industry were keen to have the bill progressed—we still had work to do with the plumbing and drainlaying side of the industry.

I am pleased that the select committee took that approach. I am pleased that the issues that were so obvious then have now been largely resolved and we have moved on, and that the review that Hazel Armstrong conducted on behalf, I think, of the Minister for Tertiary Education showed that the issues being spoken about by many members—the low pass rates and the difficulty of getting qualified people out into the industry—were actually being addressed. I think that the review has given us a way forward. It has allowed the industry to regroup, to refocus on its core task of training apprentices and ensuring that those tradespeople are properly qualified. That means not only that they are registered to be tradespeople but that their practising licence, if you like—their currency—is established, and that will see the industry in much better stead.

I think we now have the bills in pretty good shape. The select committee has done a good job. It has done the job that select committees are there to do—to listen to the public and to get feedback from them. I thoroughly agreed with the concept of keeping registration. I actually strongly argued that we must keep registration as well as a practising licence regime. I think it would be unfair, if I were not in Parliament, for me to be expected to resume work in the electrical trade after 18, 20-odd years away without having any refresher course, for example. That would be just crazy stuff. So that is why we have the concept of an original registration plus a currency—a licence to practise. I think that that is a very good model on which to build, and the electricity, gas, and plumbing and drainlaying industry all now have that concept embedded in this legislation. I think we have done a good job.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to Part 5 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Part 6 Registration and licensing of plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers