Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I'm going to attempt to respond to some of the amendments that have been tabled as well as the additional points that have been made in the committee in no particular order. There were questions raised about the composition of the Social Workers Registration Board and about whether or not they reflect the social work sector and social workers. Can I just say that the actual bill requires that the board will comprise four registered social workers and three others. Currently it's got six registered social workers plus four others so there's a good representation of people that have experience and insights in the sector. I do need to say also that one of the more recent appointments Shannon Pākura was also previously the chair of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers so I think she comes very well informed about what's required for social workers and reflects their desires for the workforce so it's good to have her on board.Questions were raised about how well the bill responds to Māori. Can I just say that in 2018 in the context of engagement with the Social Work Alliance on the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187 the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) considered the suggestion by the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association of incorporating reference to the Treaty of Waitangi in the Social Workers Registration Act. MSD at the time concluded that additional references to Māori interests were not needed because the Act already set out clear obligations in relation to Māori interests—in fact this Act stood out amongst other legislation as having some of the most extensive requirements to recognise Māori. Just as a comparison the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act doesn't have the same level of reference to Māori as what this bill does except for the proposed amendment in relation to cultural competence. Also there are other Acts that don't have as much as what this one does so I do need to state that this is a responsive piece of legislation.We had the Hon Alfred Ngaro wanting to remove new section 8B in clause 9AB. So I think that is Contents of authorisation of individual scope of practice" and we'd say no to that because a social worker will still be able to do the tasks they are qualified and authorised to do the same as for our health professions that use scopes of practice. Alfred Ngaro has also put an amendment up asking that we remove new section 6AAB 1(b) in clause 8 which is about "Key requirements for practising as [a] social worker". Looking at that and considering that we would say no because it's actually a necessary part of the scopes of practice model. We need to have that key requirement in there and it's consistent with other health professions that use this model.Simeon Brown has asked that we remove new section 5B(1) in clause 6A of the SOP and to that we'd say no because the board can still recognise qualifications as well as prescribe qualifications—so that word "prescribe" is just a means of recognising what qualifications a New Zealand social worker will need. It's different terminology. The same qualifications will be prescribed; it's just a different procedure. The Hon Louise Upston asked us to remove section 8 which is about "Applications for registration and authorisation to practise within [a] scope of practice". We don't need to do that because actually scopes of practice are flexible. We're not prescribing them as such in the legislation. As I said earlier as Jan Logie has pointed out this is an enabling piece of legislation but it doesn't actually prescribe the scopes of practice. We have given licence through this for the Social Workers Registration Board to work with the sector to actually determine what the scope of practice should look like.We've got another one from the Hon Louise Upston asking us to remove section 8G which is about decisions of the board on changes to scopes of practice and looking at that the answer to that is no because a social worker will be able to carry out the tasks they're qualified and authorised to do. Actually I think that was covered off earlier. I apologise if I'm repeating myself.Someone raised questions about unintended consequences of scopes. The risks suggested would arise only if the scopes were too narrow. This is why the SOP provides a framework and process for scopes—general and/or specialist—to be developed by the board in consultation with the sector. So again I'm going to reemphasise the fact that we haven't made a determination in this SOP for what scopes look like. These are things that need to be developed. So we have no concerns at this stage about the scopes being too narrow. How can we when actually we're only enabling their development and they haven't been developed as of yet?So I don't want to have to repeat myself with regards to traversing areas that we've already traversed. I think I've responded to most if not all of the questions that have been asked as well as responding to the amendments that have been tabled in the House by the Opposition and giving responses with respect to why we will not be able to support them."