Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Mr Chair. The Minister felt that she needed to school the Opposition in regards to Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) or—actually they were amendments to the SOP because we can't submit an SOP on an SOP. So I'd just like to remind the Minister of that as well. But we are here because—as my colleague the Hon Louise Upston said—the process in the Minister's own tardiness wasn't taken care of. There was no opposition in the Social Services and Community Committee; it was a robust process for us heading towards that. There was no opposition to scopes of practice; we were in support of that. What concerned us was that we applied for an extension; the extension didn't happen so we thought Right that's fine. The Minister has a concern. She wants to get this through as quickly as possible into the sector." We are now six months on. So I just want to put that on record because the Minister felt she needed to address our so-called tardiness. But I'd like to say to the Minister that actually her tardiness is the reason we are here. In fact this bill would have been done and dusted all completed and processed through to the third reading if it had not been this case. So I want to put that on record to the Minister. To the Minister—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! OK I'm going to make a ruling. I've only been in the Chair for—this is the fourth speech—so less than 20 minutes and there's been a lot of kōrero around process and things that are not related to Part 2 specifically. This is actually quite narrow and I'm stating that to the Minister as well. Making a comment—I could have interrupted you at the time but I've been sitting here thinking about that the response about the regulatory impact statement: fine. But bringing other matters into it—and I've allowed the Hon Louise Upston to actually address that which I've done. We can now have a constructive debate if we debate Part 2. So I'm asking the Hon Alfred Ngaro to debate Part 2. Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you Mr Chair. So Part 2—in particular I would like to put to the Minister and it goes to the point around Part 2 clause 70 in regards to the "Amendment to Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004". Now the reasons why I'm raising this are that we know this is part of the omnibus process of the original bill but in particular because the Minister has already stated that she has had conversations with those in the sector. In this part in particular we'd like to know: what has been the outcome of those conversations? We have not been privy to them throughout a normal select committee process in which we wouldn't have those questions. Now we have those questions. My question then to the Minister in particular is to ask: in consultation with those in the sector what was some of the feedback in regards to Part 2 clause 70 "Amendment to Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004"—in particular subclause (2) where it says this: "the Social Workers Registration Board is considering whether the eligible individual is a fit and proper person to be registered or to practise as a social worker under the Social Workers Registration Act 2003". That becomes important because I have had those in the community who have talked about clean slate. Those who have had historical offences previously in the past they've actually gone through a process have actually had a moment in their lives when they were young made mistakes in their lives but have been considering and have been working—both in the community work in youth work and in others—towards a social work practice certificate diploma and degree. So this is a relevant issue for those in the community who have raised this issue.I'd like to hear from the Minister: in the conversations that she was having—and if I take the bill itself the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act in Part 2 it talks about who is eligible—the conversations that relate to Part 2 in clause 70 are issues around rehabilitation. So the questions from the community are: the fact is that in section 7 of the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act they talk about the amendments in this change; what were the considerations around rehabilitation so that the Social Workers Registration Board will now have that as part of its consideration?The second issue will be around custodial sentences. We know that under the clean slate Act if anyone is ineligible because they've had a custodial sentence—but there have been others who talked to me about community-based sentencing. So the concern is that those who have got historical offences those who would have been eligible under the clean slate Act they know that now under this Part 2 of the bill—what will be the consideration for the Social Workers Registration Board? I'd like the Minister to be able to share with us those conversations if any or any of the concerns that may have been raised in this regards. It's pertinent to those who are currently practitioners who are looking to move towards a qualification but more importantly as this bill initiates a mandatory registration for those in social work practice. I believe that that's not unreasonable for us to be able to ask these questions of the Minister.Then in regards to that once we look at the criteria then what would be the consequence? Will the Social Workers Registration Board under this clean slate amendment bill in Part 2 then take into consideration where there could be an eligible criteria where potentially they could work towards a form in which the recognition of their expertise could mean that they could still be eligible to be recognised as mandatory social workers—they are registered under this legislation for the purpose of this bill. Those are the comments. They're questions that are genuine. They're raising this with the Minister. That's opened up because the Minister has had these conversations outside of a select committee process. We as a committee have not had the privilege to be able to hear those concerns."