Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Thank you Mr Chair. Going back to what this part is about I think it's important to note that the majority of content in this bill was actually in Part 1 and Part 2 is the amendments to other Acts as a result of the content in Part 1. I will state that the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) introduces this Part 2; however many of the sections that are in Part 2 were actually in the original bill. It's just added the scopes of practice and moved a few sections around. There's very little that is dissimilar to what existed when the previous Government was in place. So I find it interesting that we're relitigating some of that detail when I think there was agreement up until the introduction of the SOP despite the fact that not all of this is actually as a result of the SOP but we'll have that discussion anyway.Also I've been again asked how I can be assured or confident that this has been informed appropriately by those who have a vested interest in social worker registration—mandatory social worker registration—and I haven't stated tonight in the House but I did previously when we were going through the committee stages that the SOP was developed collaboratively by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) with the Social Work Alliance which consists of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers Careerforce the Council for Social Work Education Aotearoa New Zealand the District Health Boards' Health Social Work Leaders' Council the Ministry for Children—Oranga Tamariki the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services the Social Service Providers Aotearoa the Social Workers Registration Board the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association and the New Zealand Public Service Association. So as I stated previously the broad coverage of these groups across the social work sector has provided me with the confidence and the Ministry of Social Development with the confidence that public consultation on the SOP was not necessary; hence why it didn't go back to the select committee. All of the key stakeholders have come together to formulate the SOP that we have in front of us tonight and the bill that we have in front of us tonight.Can I also bring up a point that was raised by the Hon Louise Upston with regards to the regulatory impact statement (RIS)? A good point was made actually—and I do note this: a mistake was made and an older version of it was put on the Table. The mistake has now been corrected so that the more recent one is now on the Table. But I will state that the correct version has been on the MSD website since mid-December 2018. It's also on the Treasury website.Hon Louise Upston: This is Parliament. Table it in Parliament. Get the right version in Parliament.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: That member is yelling about an old regulatory impact statement being placed on the Table tonight. Can I remind that member that they tabled a number of SOPs in the House that have now been hand-scribbled on because they were incorrect and made no sense. Occasionally mistakes are made in this House. So I will say that we made one mistake by the MSD officials accidentally putting the old RIS on the table. That's better than the ten insufficient inadequate incorrect SOPs that were tabled by the other side and then had to be corrected.Can I also just point out that concerns have been raised by the previous speaker about Part 2 and the changes that are in here with respect to amendments to other pieces of legislation. Let me be clear: Part 2 sets out consequential amendments to the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 and the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004. So the bill will amend the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 to ensure that no criminal convictions can be concealed from police vettings required for the consideration of whether a person is a fit and proper person. I don't think any of us in this room would disagree that that's an important change to be made and in fact the only difference is that previously when you went for vetting the clean slate Act could pick it up; now it's required that when they're going through the process a social worker must declare whether or not they have any criminal convictions rather than wait for the clean slate Act to pick it up. So I think that's a really important change.The other question that has been asked by the honourable member Louise Upston was with regards to fitness to practise. So there is a definition: The SWRLB [Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill] extends the grounds on which a social worker may be found not to be a fit and proper person to practise. The Board may find a person is not a fit and proper person to practise as a social worker only if it is satisfied that there are grounds on which a reasonable person would reach that conclusion"—there are sections referred to here. "In addition to the existing grounds the Board may be satisfied that those grounds exist if they are satisfied that any of the following grounds are met: the social worker is not able to communicate effectively for the purposes of practising;"—Hon Peeni Henare: Sounds sensible to me.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Sounds sensible to me too. Second bullet point: "the social worker's ability to communicate in English is not sufficient to protect the health and safety of the public; professional disciplinary proceedings are being taken against the social worker and the Board considers that those proceedings reflect adversely on the social worker's fitness to practise; the social worker is subject to an investigation and the Board considers that those proceedings reflect adversely on the social worker's fitness to practise; a finding or order has been made against the social worker in professional disciplinary findings or an investigation and the finding or order reflects adversely on the social worker's fitness to practise; and the Board believes on reasonable grounds that the social worker may endanger the health or safety of the public". So I think that that's a pretty clear explanation. Thank you Mr Chair."