Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I wasn't expecting to have to take a call in this debate because occasionally parties can work together for the best interests of this House for the best interests of the public and for the best interests of the people that we are seeking to serve through our legislation. This was supposed to be one of those moments. Allegations have been made from the Opposition that I have made mistakes in the process. It's very disingenuous actually and I think that the general public should be concerned about that. The Opposition knows very clearly that the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) have acknowledged that it was their oversight and that is the reason that we are back here. In fact I was in the cafeteria at lunchtime when Simon O'Connor said to me Carmel Sepuloni politics aside I hope you've had a stern word to PCO." His words to me were about why we are back here today. So I have to say that to me if anything this just indicates the disarray that the Opposition is in given that their whip gave a very clear instruction to them that we had agreement across this House that we would not re-litigate any of the debate that we would not stand and take calls and yet Nick Smith and Louise Upston—who Nick Smith thinks I need to apologise to—have to stand in the House and defy the whips by taking calls when it's unnecessary.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! I took my time before I stood up but it's really inappropriate to bring the officials into the debate. This debate is about this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 191 and only about this SOP. So—[Interruption]—I'm on my feet. And so we need to turn our attention to this SOP.Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In this particular case the Minister is not at fault. The Minister checked the SOP. The wording was correct. It was formatted incorrectly by the Parliamentary Counsel Office who have written a letter of apology to the Minister and to the House because in fact the information supplied by the officials was incorrectly presented. It is absolutely appropriate for a Minister to point those things out because the question is: how did the House get into this situation? The Minister can't answer that question if she can't actually say that the officials made a mistake and have apologised for it.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I thank the member for bringing that to my attention. It is in the Standing Orders. I'm not aware of any letter but according to the Standing Orders members should not bring the officials into the debate and I felt that that had been done.Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have an entire debate about why the bill is being recommitted and what the mistake was. The Minister is being challenged for not addressing that—she is addressing that by pointing out how the mistake was made and who made it.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm going to reiterate what I said before and I'll just allow the Minister to continue.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: So now that I've gotten that out of my system can I move on to give a more comprehensive explanation of why we are back here today. So to be clear why we have recommitted to reconsider amendments to clause 2 set out in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 191 today is because last night when we voted on clause 2 we did not vote on the amendments proposed in SOP 187 for this part; instead as the bill currently stands the version put forward by the select committee is the current version.The reason for the error—and I do need to respond comprehensively to the Opposition given that the question has been raised over and over again and they've asked for an explanation from me in this House—was a drafting error by PCO who failed to indicate that there were amendments to be voted on in clause 2 through the SOP. The proposed changes were not underlined and identified as changes which was a significant oversight by PCO which they acknowledge. PCO have acknowledged this and we will be continuing to work with PCO to ensure errors like this do not continue to occur.Why do we need to amend it? It's essential that we put forward the right version of clause 2. Without the correction in the new SOP today registration within scopes of practice and the other affected amendments will come into force on the day following Royal assent. As was discussed yesterday evening it's important that we get scopes of practice right and we need to ensure all the proposed changes in the SOP come into force as intended to allow for proper consultation and preparation by the sector. So I'm making a point. I'm not having the stern talking to PCO that I was asked to or told to by Simon O'Connor although I do appreciate his sentiment.What I do want to point out is that we accept occasionally even in this place mistakes are made. PCO acknowledged they've made a mistake in this instance which is why we're back here today. Last night I acknowledged that an older regulatory impact statement was put on the Table instead of the more up to date one and we also pointed out that the Opposition submitted 10 SOPs that all had to be corrected because they all made no sense and were also badly worded. So actually it's not just PCO that have made mistakes in this process. We forgive them and we are here to finish this off and to get this very important piece of legislation through committee stage so we can get on to the third reading and assure New Zealanders that actually social workers that are in place are qualified they are registered New Zealanders can feel protected the profession can feel protected and we can move on from 16 years ago when this bill was first introduced and social worker registration was made voluntary with the intention of making it mandatory. We can move on to the point where we finally get to that place that we actually all agree on—where social worker registration is mandatory in New Zealand. Thank you Mr Chair."