Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I thought I'd respond given that the member Maureen Pugh raised some similar issues or questions that were raised by the previous member that spoke as well Dan Bidois.Just to respond to the question that has been put to me about why we couldn't take two to three more weeks to perhaps develop the scopes of practice it wouldn't have taken two to three more weeks to develop the scopes of practice; it would have taken a much more extensive period of time. The reason that this became achievable in terms of looking at scopes of practice and including some provision in the legislation is that we realised not just myself but the sector and the ministry that we didn't actually have to develop them; we just needed to put the provision for the development of them in the legislation. So that became the answer and so that is why we didn't need to take two to three more weeks. It wouldn't have been two to three more weeks if we were trying to develop the scopes of practice; it would've been much longer. We haven't put them in the legislation. I just need to remind the member that brought that up. The provision to develop them is in the legislation. So I think that's really important to note.It was also asked who I consulted with with respect to formulating the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that we have in front of us. That is the main topic of debate this evening and so just to be very clear the SOP was developed collaboratively by the Ministry of Social Development with the Social Work Alliance. The Social Work Alliance consists of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers Careerforce the Council for Social Work Education Aotearoa New Zealand the district health board professional social worker leaders Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services the Social Service Providers Aotearoa Social Workers Registration Board Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association and the New Zealand Public Service Association. The broad coverage of these groups across the social workers sector really did provide me and the ministry with the confidence to be able to go ahead and do this and also provided me with the assurance that further public consultation on the SOP was not necessary.That's a pretty significant substantial group that I have just spoken about. I know that the member Dan Bidois raised the issue that well if only 70 percent of the submitters said that they wanted scopes of practice then that means that 30 percent didn't. Well actually they didn't explicitly state that. None of the 30 percent who aren't in the 70 percent said they didn't want scopes of practice. None of the written submissions did. The 70 percent who I speak about who explicitly stated they wanted scopes of practice included—there's that group and then there's another 30 percent that made submissions who were silent on the whole issue and didn't bring up scopes of practice at all. So neither did they come to submit that we must do this and neither did they come and say that this is something we shouldn't do. So I think to make it really clear there wasn't a huge chunk of submitters—in fact there were none—that stipulated this is something that we should not do.