Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): I thank God for the day that registered social worker 1473 came into the Community and Social Services Committee because the day that she came in she added a bit of common sense to this bill when we had that in the debate and I did say that to her. One of the issues that came up during the discussion and especially during the select committee process was about scopes of practice. I know that she knew what we were talking about because that was an issue from the very organisations that she's just named. Those organisations said Look the bill is great; it's heading in the right direction." We know the numbers: 6300 already registered nearly 2000 that were unregistered who wanted to move from a voluntary to a mandatory regime. Not a problem. Everybody agreed that that's what we should do. But when it came to the select committee process through the submissions from the very organisations they said this: "All we ask is that you include it in there—not to define it so that you're bound by legislation. Regulation will define the specific areas of that scope but you should include that into the legislation." We on the select committee then said that we'd like to take that back through the advisers back to the Minister for Social Development and so forth. But here's what we got back: "Time is short; we've got to move on." In fact I want to read some of the advice that came in the regulatory impact statement. It talks about these very scopes: "Scopes were initially considered during the early development of the Bill but on balance they were not seen as required to meet the objectives of the proposed legislation. Cabinet decisions from mid-2017 affirmed the decision not to include a scope of practice …". In the regulatory statement that's what the officials gave back to us.So why are we here now—and we've got Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187 to now include into the bill? There was plenty of opportunity. We were pushed we were rushed to get the bill done. We wanted to give it time and space to allow for those issues to be discussed. We were told "No we're going to move on." The officials have given their advice which would have come from the Minister as well. Not today not now and probably not ever but now we are here over in the second part of the bill. We agree with the bill. You will get the vote from National in regards to this piece of legislation. What you won't get though is the vote for the SOP and here is the reason why: poor practice. We're talking scopes of practice inside this bill around the registration on social workers; how about practice in regards to the Minister in her practice?Here's an even greater concern. We were asking officials in the Minister's office "So what was the change of heart? What was the change of mind? Was there official advice? Was there a report that was submitted? Was there some other part of the regulatory impact statement?" No there wasn't. It was a conversation that was had with some other social workers after the fact. For a Government that talks about being transparent a Government that's talking about evidence-based why is it that now a decision to change has simply come through a conversation with some friends? That's what we're protesting about. That's the reason why we're saying it over and over again. We do not deny the fact that scope of practice should be there. In fact all of the parts of the bill this select committee along with National members absolutely support it. What we are protesting against—and it's silence of the lambs on the other side because they know it to be true—is the fact that this is poor practice didn't need to happen.Hon Peeni Henare: How did the Saudi sheep farm happen?Hon ALFRED NGARO: Didn't need to happen. OK? Well I don't know about sheep farms but what I do know is about social workers OK that came to us in the select committee from the very organisations—from registration 1473 as she named them inside here in this House. Those very people possibly some of the lecturers that would have lectured social workers said to us "Please include scopes of practice." That's what I can tell you about. Those are the words that they shared. That's what we wanted to push through but it didn't happen. And again what has to be of great concern to those that are listening on the outside is why having a conversation possibly over a cup of tea would've changed the mind of the Minister. I know the Minister's better than that. But I have to say Minister on this case here I have to say it's poor practice.Hon Peeni Henare: Only that party has secret cups of tea.Hon ALFRED NGARO: Yes the member over there can keep trying to interject because it's a bit silent on the other side because the reality is they know it to be true. We're not contesting anything inside this bill. We're not contesting anything inside this bill but the point we do want to make is this: when you had the support of the House to support this Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill when you had the fact that we were supporting all the elements in that would it have taken—and here's the other thing: from the time that we then had the bill submitted with the report sent back into the House six months—six months—it sat there. We were told to rush the bill through. Why? Because time was of the essence. We needed to get this completed because social workers in the communities in Aotearoa needed to have this bill passed. We waited six months before we even got to this point where we're now having the second reading. What was the rush? Why could you not have taken the time? Why are we here? There's only one point to be made tonight in the speeches of the House from this side: it's poor practice. That's what we're saying. If you'd just taken the time—Hon Peeni Henare: Nine years your party did nothing.Hon ALFRED NGARO: Nine years. Well let's just talk about that. As the chairperson in 2016 of the Social Services Committee we initiated and as the chair I initiated the inquiry into social work practice and in particular around managing registration. In 2017 this was initiated by the Hon Anne Tolley. [Interruption] Well you can talk about that. What about the nine years previously under a Labour Government when they were lobbied—when it was advocated—for change? Did they change? No they didn't. You see the reality is you've got your history of inactivity and in our time we began the process and would have passed the legislation. Hon Member: You had nine years.Hon ALFRED NGARO: Throw your nine years but here's the reality right? The point is that we would have done it. We would have continued the process through. So you know what? The nine years is not about—the fact is that we are supporting this legislation. You're hurting because of the poor practice. That's what you're hurting about. And you know what? It's great—I've got another three minutes where I can keep saying it: poor practice. That's what it is. All you needed to do was take another two to three weeks. That's all we asked for. We asked for an extension—not given. All we asked was to take a little bit more time allow those very social workers that you are standing up there for and championing; the very social workers you said are doing a great job and we absolutely agree; the very social workers you stand up and say "We are the champions and the advocates for"—they asked for this not us. They asked for it. You didn't give it and now we're back here again. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I didn't give it. Hon ALFRED NGARO: Sorry Mr Assistant Speaker. I do apologise. I know you're a strong advocate Mr Assistant Speaker. But the community of social workers asked for this. They asked for this. They asked that we would simply take the time to extend this to include the scopes of practice. Every time I stand up here and say it I know it hurts but it's the truth. It is poor practice and what they should have done is just take an extra two weeks allow them to come up with a submission extend it—we wouldn't even be talking about this. We would have been standing alongside you championing all the parts of this bill. That's what we would have been doing. It's unfortunate that we are at this place and so I again want to affirm the words that have been spoken on this side. All it would have taken is just a little bit of extra time to turn around and listen to the words that were supported through the submissions by the social workers themselves: "Please include scopes of practice inside the legislation." It's what we ask for. But unfortunately it had to come through the back door. Unfortunately it did not come and when our officials actually asked of the Minister's officials if we could have some of that advice that was given it was not forthcoming. That's an even greater concern: not a single report nothing that was there that shows the evidence but simply it was advocated in the quiet and in the silence. For a Government that prides itself on transparency that was not the case in this situation. That is the point that we make here on the side of the House. We will support the bill. We will not support the Supplementary Order Paper that's being submitted by the Minister."