Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. The more I hear from this debate the more confused I am from the Minister's explanation about how we have arrived at this point. When we talk about the 16 years that we've been reviewing the Social Workers Registration Act and the processes and the scopes of practice we as a select committee had to take a recommendation from the Ministry of Social Development that there was insufficient time for the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the scopes of practice. So as a select committee and I refer to page 16 of the report from the select committee we recommend no other change as the ministry considers the obligations align with the objective of the bill to protect the public from harm. So in order to extend the scope of the bill the Minister would not allow the select committee to consider it but has then gone on to unilaterally decide using the same ministry advice to then consider Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187 that we've got in front of us tonight. So it confuses me that the Minister is accepting advice conflicting advice from different ministries about this SOP and the scopes of practice.I want to turn the committee's attention to new Part 1A of Supplementary Order Paper 187 because we are talking about scopes of practice and I'm left wondering how many of these scopes of practice will eventually end up on the table with the board. Are we going to have subsets of a main set or a main scope of practice? Will there be a specialist perhaps scopes of practice for specialist social workers maybe for senior mental health maybe youth and maybe disability? Are we going to have more than one scope of practice that is referred to in new Part 1A new section 5A(1) where it does actually refer to the social work profession in one or more scopes of practice. So if we could just have some indication from the Minister about how many of these we may be anticipating.I also now turn to new subsection (2) in new Part 1A new section 5A. It says that the scope of practice and the services described in it may be described as the Board thinks fit". "May" is a very non-committal word and I think in the context in which we're looking at it here in this bill that perhaps the word needs to be "must" that the "scope of practice and the services described in it must be described as the Board thinks fit". That way there is no discretion around how it eventually does get described.While I have this opportunity I would also like to turn to new section 5C(3). It talks about the proposal for consulting with the sector around the scopes of practice who the board must give consideration to and whose views must be represented when they are developing the scopes of practice. I believe that although these are the professional bodies that will be consulted and have input into it there's no provision in there for the users of the service to contribute or the public in general to have any contribution back there. I recall my colleague Chris Penk earlier tonight referring to a very old song by Tiny Tim where he's talked about tiptoeing through the tulips. This one reminds me of an old song by Frank Sinatra where he says "I'll do it my way." I just wonder if we need to expand this interpretation so that the users of the service perhaps have some valuable contribution to make back to the board about the scopes of practice.Also inside there there is a reference in new paragraph (4) that the version must be given notice on an internet site. I just ask the Minister to consider whether the words "publicly accessible internet site" should be included in that as not all internet sites are publicly available. I just think that this will give—[Time expired]"