Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): My contribution is in two parts. I want to take up the point that was raised by my colleague the Hon Louise Upston in regards to what's being used as the definition of social work practice—and it's using a global term. In the submissions that were made that was unanimous. However there were issues there that I think are worthy of some concern. Also too I'd like the Minister to consider this question that I would put to her. It's in particular regarding the fact that while there's a global definition that's been adopted there also too were other submissions. I want to read from this. There's an acceptance of the global definition; however currently there is a regional amplification under consultation to incorporate a commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi promoting tino rangatiratanga for Māori and challenging the continuing impact of colonial oppression on the wellbeing of tangata whenua." That was one of the submissions that was made. Also too there was another submission and I've read from the submission from the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association.So while the global definition is widely accepted what is challenged is in regards to how we ensure that it is current and relevant in regards to that of New Zealand and in regards to working with indigenous Māori in particular. I again read from the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association who've got some real concerns about this. They talked about the fact that what this may do is "minimise the importance of the association between professional title and practice" and "enable the practice to be disassociated from the rigour of professional scrutiny" which enables the work for kaupapa Māori to be effective with family and whānau. So my question to the Minister is in this regard: has she taken this into consideration? She's talked about the working out of this over the period of time but I just want to put this on the table. This is a submission that has come through to the select committee and again I want to put that as a question to the Minister.The second question I'd like to make I want to preface first of all by stating to the Minister and to the committee that on this side of the Chamber in Opposition we do not oppose the principle of a scope of practice. But what we are challenging in the committee stage is around I suppose unintended consequences that could come from not challenging and not having an opportunity to be able to work through in a rigorous way the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187 that's put before the committee. I'd like to say to the Minister that as she also has had conversations we too on this side have been approached by those in the sector both those who are registered social workers and those who also too are academics that are teaching social work practice as well.So hence the reason why my amendment which is to Part 1 new Part 1A in my name is to remove new clause 5B in SOP 187. The explanatory note to that in particular is that "This proposed amendment removes the above clause from Supplementary Order Paper 187 as requiring prescribed qualification is unworkable and there are currently few postgraduate qualifications that would fit within the different qualifications as it currently stands within the SOP 187".So Minister this has actually come from those in the sector who've approached us who've talked with us and are actually saying that at the moment as it currently stands—and as we know with the current challenges and changes that are happening within the tertiary sector—there is a real concern. So while we may pass this law into a mandatory registration regime what we may find in the future is that the unintended consequence is not being able to have the provision to provide tertiary-qualified training for those that are most in need.So again my amendment—I hope that the Minister will have taken advice and may be able to answer that question but it's just taking that into consideration. So that's what I would like to put forward to the Minister as well.To the Minister in this regard too: when we think about that—and again more comments have come through this which are supported by the submissions. It's just that in regards to the fact that—I hear the Minister the scope will be broad enough. But when we look at the details and we think about prescribed qualifications in new Part 1A new clause 5B and in particular where it talks about the different scopes that will be addressing some of the different areas—for instance mental health other areas around addiction—there are a variety of different complexities and different specialist areas that are there. The unintended consequence—and I'd like to hear from the Minister in the chair Carmel Sepuloni if she'd be able to respond to this—is that what we may find is that those who've now got a general both experience and qualification may now not be able to practise in those particular areas. So my question to the Minister is that one of the other unintended consequences—and again this is coming from those in the sector that are talking to us wanting to raise this. I suppose we've become their voice of concern through the committee stage to be able to talk about the unintended consequence of the fact that what may happen—and an example that was given for instance: if we think about those who are specialising in kaupapa Māori some of the submissions have talked about social workers who've got a particular expertise around Whānau Ora as navigators who still have a social work qualification but have a special I suppose designated area of expertise in which they would practise. Would that mean that others in their client base would not be able to practise kaupapa Māori because they don't have that specialist area?So a genuine question that's come from the sector is to be able to ask the question: in trying to be all-encompassing and trying to regulate the sector and trying to look at ways in which we can ensure that the specific areas of prescribed practice and qualification under new section 5B in new Part 1A—could the unintended consequence be that those who have a qualification as a social work practitioner may not then be able to practise in the particular areas?Another example that was given to me for instance: there are those—and this is from the tertiary sector. There are qualifications that have a conjoint practice and qualification—for instance counselling and also too social work practice. There are those that are out there at the moment currently with those qualifications who are practising both as social workers and as counsellors. So again the response back to us and to the Minister is to get some clarity as to whether this could be a situation in which we could find the unintended consequence that we may not be able to have those practitioners being able to offer that service and that expertise into the sector as well. So to the Minister I'd like a response again to be able—not only for us on this side but again as I've said this has come from those that are in the community that are in the sector and that are currently practising in that way as well.Again I want to just round off my comments that in regards to kaupapa Māori this has again come as of today. Other practitioners have talked about this issue. There is a real concern; there isn't the recognition there should've been. There is an exemplar in which we had the Child Poverty Reduction Bill—we made quite clear that in the primary legislation there was a reference and a recognition under the Tiriti o Waitangi that issues in regards to working with Māori for kaupapa Māori was significant to that. So while we adopt this global definition I think it's important for us to recognise and to be able to have a way of ensuring—and as I've read from the submission that came from the New Zealand Christian Council of Social Services—Simon O'Connor: Which council?Hon ALFRED NGARO: —they were the New Zealand Christian Council of Social Services—they actually talked about this and they talked about the need for us to be able to—there is currently as they've said a process in place there are conversations and there's a working group that is actually looking into this. I just wondered whether the Minister has considered that and whether there could be a way to ensure the fact that we've captured that into this bill as well.In my last minute and a half that I have as my colleague and member Simon O'Connor has put—and he's been using a bit of German; "penchant" and some other words. I suppose the German—Hon Members: That's French!Hon ALFRED NGARO: That's French? I'll put the German. I don't know—someone was calling it German but since it was French I'll put a bit of the German. There's a word that I'd learnt in my theological studies called "heilsgeschichte". It's a German word for "already but not yet".Kieran McAnulty: What's German for "sit down"?Hon ALFRED NGARO: Well maybe yeah—it's what you're doing right now. That's the reason you're sitting down and I'm standing up—sorry Madam Chair I'm not speaking to you; my apologies. But the word actually means "already but not yet" and it's a consideration of what is to come. I would actually like the Minister consider the fact that again on this side we do not oppose the scopes of practice. What we do ask is that there is genuine consideration as Supplementary Order Paper 187 has come before us in the two areas—I will just reiterate them: number one to ensure that the bill in regards to the definition is more than just global. It should be relevant to Aotearoa to New Zealand. It's including a recognition and a response to the Treaty of Waitangi. Secondly just in regards to my amendment which is about challenging the fact of unintended consequences what we may have is that we may then block the ability for others who've got specialist areas to be able to offer through a prescribed approach."