Sepuloni Carmel; Upston LouiseHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): We absolutely support the legislation and it's always good when we in the House all support something and all political parties are on the same page. We don't support the amendment for the reasons outlined in the letter that both the Minister of Social Development and Employment and I received. I do believe it was 13 February—so not yesterday—that the letter went through to your office. It is good that the Minister did see it because all of us would expect that a letter like that when a bill is going through would be treated with urgency and attention in any Minister's office would be turned to that. I understand that the submission and the contents of it went through the Social Services and Community Committee and that informed the Minister's position but our expectation and our question to the Minister is about her ability to be nimble given that this very important association and actually not just the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers but the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association have both expressed fervently that they do not support the reduction from four years to two years. So I'm asking the Minister why given the strength of the contents of that letter she is not willing to reconsider and actually retract that amendment.Secondly I want to put to the Minister the issue that may arise if she continues with the amendment that she has on the Table at the moment. The issue that I want to raise with her is that given the experts the professional bodies themselves are saying they need four years if we reduce it to two years because of the amendment then we will be back here in a year or a year and a half realising what they are saying: that it wasn't enough time for those who needed to actually access the extended pathway and is therefore going to use the resource of the public sector—and the fiscal considerations that come with that; the cost of the public sector doing the work again—and the time of this committee when actually we've already been told very clearly Don't reduce it to two years leave it at four years." So my second question is: is the Minister comfortable that there is a strong likelihood given the professional bodies' advice that we will be back here in a year or a year and a half potentially pushing to extend for another two years again?Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I'm comfortable with my decision. It is really important that part of the consideration was to ensure that we kept the emphasis on transitioning to a mandatory qualification regime which has been signalled in legislation since 2017. So I don't accept that it is not going to be possible within the two years. I do expect that that will apply some pressure. That's what I believe that we need to do to ensure that we move to that mandatory registration and that we provide that experience pathway for those who are yet to enter into it. I accept that that is not the member's position but it is the position of the Government.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: That's not the association's position.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It is not the position of the Government. It has been through a select committee process. It's a process issue that I think is also useful. It is not the practice of this committee to interrupt legislation at this stage when a submission is made late in the piece that is completely contradictory.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: We're not interrupting legislation; we're responding to an amendment.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well as I said I accept the former Minister doesn't agree with the position. As I said there were three options available. One was to not proceed with the legislation at all which I think would have had concerning impacts because it is important that we have people who are able to come through the experience pathway.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Nobody is suggesting that today; it's the amendment—it's the amendment. What option did you have in terms of that?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yep—so the options were: provide an amendment which is on the Table; not proceed with the bill.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: No one said not to proceed with the bill.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well no—as the Minister in charge of the bill that was one of the options available to me. So I accept there is a challenge and I accept with the amendment that I have tabled the two-year time frame is how we get the balance right of ensuring that we get to mandatory registration in a timely manner. So unless there are new questions on that I don't think I can answer it any more fully.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah excuse me—I'll decide when the questions come."