Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. So again pleading that the Minister in the chair engages with the recent events but as we stand in the debate that we're having really keen—the Minister hasn't addressed around what actions or what advice she's sought about the impact of changing from four to two years and I really would like the Minister to engage with the consequences of her amendment. If there is to be an amendment that will change that time line from four to two years what advice has she sought on the impacts in the intake of Māori and Pasifika social workers any advice that she's sought around the intake of social workers from low socio-economic backgrounds and what conversations has she had in between coming into the role and tabling the amendment with those professional bodies? And other than professional bodies I'm also interested in what conversations has she had with tertiary education institutions around their ability to adequately train the necessary amount of social workers to meet demand.Why I'm asking those questions is because I think tabling this amendment based on a small amount of submissions that she's received has deep consequences. So I wonder whether there was any other work that was done in preparation of this amendment that would outline the consequences of changing the time line from four to two years and whether she's then been proceeding with what else she will need to do to address any negative impacts that prematurely closing the experience pathway will have.I want to reflect on why I'm asking for the engagement of tertiary education institutions because being a field educator for social workers I've done guest lectures for social work classes and it's really clear that a lot of the people who are able to get registered through the experience pathways are some of the people who are really struggling to enter the professional sector through the traditional pathways. I've seen students who are having to work multiple jobs to make ends meet while expected to complete their unpaid labour that they do as part of the degree. So if the Minister is going to close the experience pathways in two years per the amendment that we have in front of us that will have consequences for those people who otherwise would've been able to enter through the experience pathways as the Minister works her way to ensure our tertiary education sector is up to speed and being able to support those students. Otherwise if the Minister didn't do any of that engagement then this amendment's kind of based on little evidence. And I take the Minister's point that this is not an area that she has expertise on but I really really would like her to try to at least get some advice around the level of engagement while she's in the chair to give us assurances then that this amendment that we seem to be moving towards won't have any negative consequences in the workforce and diversity of the workforce that we will have.Subsequent to that I'm also interested in for example any engagement she's had with other agencies such as the Ministry of Social Development's front-line staff in relationship to for example the impact that having social workers who come from those experience pathways accompanying people who need support from places like Work and Income has. Some of those people from experience pathways have lived experience of being on a benefit and they're able to provide support that for example others may not. So I'm keen to get a sense of for example the feedback that she's sought from front-line services and how those social workers from the experience pathways affect their ability to engage with the community. If she hasn't had that engagement how can she then be confident that this tabled amendment won't have perverse consequences?