Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Firstly I just want to acknowledge that we do support this legislation and I also acknowledge that making it mandatory for registration for social workers was actually something that was supported across the House. The history of it being: I did have a member's bill the Government at the time didn't support it then the National Government did their own bill they didn't get to see it through we got to make social worker registration mandatory when we got in—the main gist of it being though we did all support that piece of legislation. We support what is here today which is extending the pathway for experience so that social workers can become registered.What we've found over the course of recent years even after having made social worker registration mandatory is that there's still a lag. There are still some out there practising in jobs where perhaps they are partially through qualifications perhaps they have finished their qualification but they haven't yet become registered. It's important that we provide this experience pathway and extend that opportunity because we still experience a shortage of social workers and we all recognise in the House how important our social workers are and how important it is that we have them in the roles where they are serving some of our most vulnerable children families and communities. What we've seen in recent years have been some changes. We have seen the opportunity in terms of pay that social workers are able to earn actually increase and so that is something that we are hoping serves as an incentive for our social workers or those working in roles where they could actually get the social worker qualification and become registered for them to pursue that. However because we still have that workforce shortage it is necessary to provide this extended period of time for them to access that experience pathway because actually that's important for them but it's important for us being able to meet the workforce shortage that we're currently experiencing.What was disappointing with this particular bill is the Government's decision to reduce the extension or time frame for being able to get the experience pathway from four years to two years. Initially the bill had laid out four years for people to be able to access that experience pathway and then what happened was that this Government decided that it would reduce that to two years. Now I can understand why initially they may have thought that was a good idea. They did receive at least one submission during the select committee process from a reputable professional body stating that it could be reduced from four years to two years. However it is important to note that we tabled the letter in the Chamber during the committee of the whole House stage which went to the Minister for social development also came to me and now is information that every member in this House can access where the Aotearoa New Zealand Association for Social Workers (ANZASW) made clear that the submission that had been put in requesting that the extension time frame be two years rather than four years was not something that was supported by their professional body. I am going to put that letter and the words of that letter on record in the House because I think it's important. The Minister decided that despite this last-minute plea from the Aotearoa New Zealand Association for Social Workers she would push ahead with the two years rather than the four years that had been originally set down in the bill. The letter to the Minister stated Thank you for the phone call this morning."—that was actually a phone call to me; they sometimes forget that I'm not a Minister anymore—"Here is an update on the ANZASW position on the s13 Experience Pathway to social work extension currently before the house. The ANZASW prides itself on being a leader in the social work sector however occasionally we get it wrong and it appears that this is one of those times when we have been 'out of step' with the sector. For this we apologise. Our previous CE"—I won't name the previous chief executive— "prepared and presented a submission to the Select Committee arguing for a 2 year extension to the s13 Experience Pathway to social work rather than the 4 years as agreed by our other sector partners. I did try to have our submission removed and adjusted from the select committee process but the email did not get passed on to the appropriate people. I did not follow … up which is unfortunate. I have been in touch with Miriama Scott from the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association to affirm our collective position of supporting the extension of 4 years to 27 February 2028. The ANZASW supports the sector position that an extension of 4 years provides time for the [Social Worker Registration Board] alongside MSD and the sector to consider the longer-term options for [entering] into social work which is a crucial need. The ANZASW supports the training of more social workers which includes alternative pathways … for more culturally appropriate training to occur. We are very concerned with the low numbers of Māori and Pasifika social workers in the sector and note that there are many working with whānau hapū and iwi and in marae who would benefit from these alternative pathways to acknowledge their mahi and years of experience. We also acknowledge the skills and knowledge they bring to the sector and that many will in time engage in social work education programmes."That letter came from Sharyn Roberts from the Aotearoa New Zealand Association for Social Workers. It went to the Minister and yet the Minister chose to ignore that last-minute plea to keep the legislation as was at four years rather than reducing it to two years. The implications for the social workers association have been laid out really clearly. It will reduce the opportunity for some of those social workers particularly Māori and Pacific to be able to get registered and to be able to continue practising. That is detrimental not just for their own careers but also particularly for the whānau that are going to want to and need to access their support.The issue that I raised during committee stages that arises by the Minister ignoring this letter is firstly any defence that they were using to actually justify the reduction in time is null and void when the professional bodies then come back with a letter like this saying "Please excuse that submission. We tried to pull it. That is not our position at all."Secondly I have to say it does cause us all to question how nimble the Minister is able to be in these situations because actually she should have been able to turn around to see that the position was different from what she had first thought and then been able to adjust accordingly. But unfortunately she was not able to.It was concerning during the committee stage too to put on record that the actual Minister of the bill was not the one who was presiding in the chair at the time. It's very hard to have a constructive debate when the person who should be most informed about this bill was not the one who was participating in the committee stage.I raised the point during committee stage too that if we find ourselves in a position 18 months from now where we still have the workforce shortages in the social work sector for qualified registered social workers in 18 months' time there is a very strong chance because of the urgent need to have social workers in these positions that we're going to end up back in this House having to legislate amend again for another extension when we could have just got it right the first time.So we do support this bill with the utmost disappointment though that the experts have been ignored—not the first time by that Government I have to say—that a plea to actually keep the bill as is was undermined and that the decision to reduce that time period to two years has continued despite the evidence that has been put before the Minister. That is disappointing. That is disappointing particularly in light that this is one of those pieces of legislation that there is cross-party support for. We only wish that the Minister could have been more nimble more willing to listen to the actual experts and amenable to actually making a change and withdrawing that amendment at committee stage. However in saying that we will continue to advocate for social workers from this side of the House and we do support the bill despite the fact that we are clearly disappointed and do not agree with the two-year reduction in time for these social workers to be able to access the experience pathway."