Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I'm really glad that the Minister mentioned the amendment that they're putting up. Can I make it very clear that we are supporting the bill overall; in fact it started whilst we were still in Government and it is a good piece of legislation and it is the right thing to do.Just as context for those that are new to the House—because it is important to know when we're considering a bill like this—previously it was not mandatory for social workers to be registered. We had many people across the country who were calling themselves social workers. The expectation from the public was that these were professionals and they were qualified but that wasn't always the case. The expectation from the social work workforce is that we would take them seriously and professionalise that workforce by making registration mandatory. We did that and now there is an amendment here.What this bill does—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I—just for the purposes of the exercise there are parts that we're taking so we're actually talking to clause 1 which is the—Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I'm going to speak to what the Minister spoke about which is the amendment that she's put forward.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah but if we're not taking it as one debate it would be really good if we could talk about the title in this part and then we can get to the part that actually starts talking about the amendment. So I know it has been broadened out a little bit and given that you're the first speaker let's just sort of give a little bit of leeway here seeing as you've started. But for the committee it would be really good if we're taking this in clauses—let's go clause by clause.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: OK. Point of order Madam Chair. Just to clarify: because the Minister went broad I've come in broad and you're OK with me to continue?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I've opened that up for you to finish your speech. Yes thank you.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: OK great thank you. So what this bill effectively does is provides that pathway for people to become registered through their experience—well we already were doing that but to extend that pathway. The issue is as the Minister has said that we do not have enough social workers that there are a number of people who haven't quite finished the qualifications or become registered yet.The issue that will come up over the course of this debate is the Government's decision to put up an amendment to reduce the time frame for them to be able to access that experience pathway from four years to two years. Why I'm concerned about this—and it will be discussed I'm sure in more detail across the course of this committee stage—is that the social workers association themselves have written not only to me this week but also to the Minister for social development to make it clear to her that actually their intention is not for it to be reduced to two years. Now there has been confusion and we need to put on record how that confusion came about which led to the Government putting up this amendment that I'm hoping that they will actually retract given the advice we're getting from the professional workforce that is out there. The association did make it clear to the Minister and myself that there was a submission made to select committee by their former chief executive who had asked that the period of time for getting that access to the experience pathway be reduced from four years to two years but they themselves have said that they didn't actually all agree as an association; nor did the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association agree with that. In fact they tried to pull their submission so that it would remain a four-year extension and not be reduced to a two-year extension; however it wasn't withdrawn and that submission went through select committee. So they have written to the Minister to make the point that they want it to remain as it was at four years. They do not want this amendment to go ahead.I want to make the point because I was hoping that the Minister for social development would have received that correspondence and rethought putting this amendment up in the debate. Either she didn't receive it it hasn't been brought to her attention or she is choosing to ignore the professional social work workforce associations here with regards to their recommendation. It is important that we put this on record so that we're clear why we on this side of the House will not be supporting the amendment even though we are completely in support of the legislation and we very genuinely ask the Government to reconsider that amendment—in fact just withdraw the amendment and then the legislation as far as we are concerned is absolutely fine.I also just need to make the point before I sit down that the two population groups in terms of the social workers that would be most affected by reducing that time from four years to two years would actually be Māori and Pacific who have been working within their community and iwi organisations haven't yet finished their qualifications or their registration and are going to be denied the four years to actually get up to speed and get that registration that we need them to get. Thank you Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. I call Ricardo Menéndez March and I just reiterate to the committee if we could work through the clause that we're currently on we'll allow plenty of time to have the debate on the relevant clauses. So could we stick to the title clause in the beginning please.