Social Workers Registration Bill

I move, That the Social Workers Registration Bill be now read a second time. This bill provides a framework for the registration of social workers in New Zealand. It puts in place a number of measures designed to protect the safety and well-being of all New Zealanders who receive the services of a registered social worker. The regulation of social workers has been the subject of debate over a number of years. There has been concern about the lack of credibility of social work as a profession. There has also been a growing expectation from New Zealanders, particularly those who use the social services, that social workers should be more accountable for their work, and that their work should be more transparent. In its 1999 manifesto the Labour Party pledged to establish a system of professional registration for social workers. This bill delivers on that commitment.

The nature of social work requires social workers to assist individuals, families, and communities who have to cope with stressful life events and difficult circumstances. Because those circumstances often make people vulnerable, New Zealanders need to be sure that they are protected from poor social work practice and the harm it can inflict. The proposed legislation addresses that need. The aims of the bill are, firstly, to protect the public by providing mechanisms to ensure that social workers are competent to practice and accountable for the way in which they practice, secondly, to create a framework for the registration of social workers, thirdly, to provide for a board to promote the benefits of registration and to administer the registration system, and, finally, to enhance the professionalism of social workers.

The bill stipulates that registration will be based on a person’s competence and fitness to practice social work. The entry criteria for registration will require an educational qualification and practice experience, followed by an assessment of competence. The person must also be judged competent to practice social work with Māori and different ethnic and cultural groups in New Zealand. The bill proposes that only those people who have been through a competency process will have the right to use the title “registered social worker.” While other people will not be stopped from practising social work, uncertified practitioners will not be able to give themselves that title. The bill also requires that registered social workers renew their registration after 5 years, including the undertaking of a further assessment of their competence. Registered social workers will be made accountable for their practice through the establishment of a complaints and disciplinary process.

The Social Services Committee received 37 submissions on the bill. The majority of those submissions—30 out of 37—supported the intent of the bill, which is to provide public protection, to improve the quality of social work services, to scrutinise the fitness and competence of social workers, and to ensure they are accountable for what they do. Those submitters saw that the bill would benefit the people who use social work services. A smaller number of submissions expressed reservations about the bill. In particular, they questioned whether the bill would be able to achieve its purpose and offer enough protection to the public if registration was not mandatory. I know at least one speaker will raise that issue here in this debate. I would like, therefore, to address the issue of it being voluntary to become a registered social worker.

As the select committee quite rightly noted, it is not viable to introduce mandatory registration immediately. Although the specific criteria for registration have yet to be defined because that is a job of the Social Workers Registration Board, it is likely that a significant proportion of the social workers who are currently practising would not immediately meet the criteria for registration. It would also be unrealistic to expect that employers and individual social workers would have the time and the money needed to gain registration immediately. Mandatory registration is not consistent with other forms of occupational regulation. Voluntary regulation regimes are the most common form of regulating other professions. For example, they are used for accountants. As a result of considering that issue, the select committee has recommended that as part of its regular review of the legislation, the Social Workers Registration Board should specifically consider the extent to which the system of voluntary registration is achieving the purposes of the legislation. I, of course, support that.

As a result of the submissions received on and of its own consideration of the bill, the Social Services Committee has recommended a number of other changes, which I support. I will just skip through them. Members of the committee were concerned to ensure that the registration framework is established as soon as possible after the bill is passed. To assist that, they have recommended that the commencement clause of the bill be amended to require that the members of the Social Workers Registration Board must be appointed within 12 months of the bill receiving the royal assent. That is what we will do. The remaining provisions of the bill will come into effect by Order in Council, and different dates may be appointed for different provisions. Those amendments enable the Social Workers Registration Board to be established as soon as possible, but no later than 12 months after the enactment of the legislation. I, of course, support that change.

The select committee saw merit in one submission that suggested that if a similar complaint against a registered social worker had previously been made and investigated, then that information should be taken into account before a complaints assessment committee makes its assessment of the complaint it has received. The select committee has recommended amending the bill to allow that when assessing a complaint about a registered social worker, a complaints assessment committee may have regard to any previous investigation or considerations, and the consequences, if any, of those investigations.

Another change that the select committee recommended, which I fully support, relates to the complaints procedures that are maintained by the employers of social workers. The Commissioner for Children suggested that the complaints and disciplinary tribunal should have a role in ensuring and promoting the establishment of complaints mechanisms within the agencies that employ social workers. Such mechanisms would assist the tribunal to better manage complaints that are likely to be referred to it. The committee agreed with that suggestion. The bill has been amended to include a new function for the Social Workers Registration Board, which is to promote that process of complaining. I agree with that. It will certainly help with the policing of unprofessional activities by social workers in their employment.

Finally, the select committee recommended that a new penalty be included in the bill. The penalty would be against a person who holds an employee or a professional associate out as a registered social worker, knowing that the employee or social worker is not registered or that his or her registration has been suspended. Again, that amendment addresses submissions that expressed concern that the bill could take responsibility away from the employers of social workers.

I would like to thank those organisations and members of the public who made submissions on this bill. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers and what it has done in bringing this bill to fruition. That association is committed to professionalism—it has been for a long time—and it welcomes this bill. I would, of course, also like to thank the select committee for its work, and for the changes that it has suggested and that we have made to the bill.

I have circulated Supplementary Order Paper 73, which largely makes technical improvements that give more clarify to certain provisions within the bill. The most significant amendment made in that Supplementary Order Paper is to extend the time limit for provisional registration from 6 to 8 years. That will allow social workers who have been granted provisional registration within 3 months of the bill being passed more time to gain their qualifications. I suspect that qualification for registration will take up to 5 years to get, because of the academic and professional components that will be required. Therefore, that increased time is useful.

The measures in this bill provide a process for the registration of all social workers in New Zealand. New Zealanders are entitled to know that social workers are competent and practice safely, that poor social work will not be tolerated, and that people will be held accountable in this profession. As I want to reflect in my third reading speech, this is a profession that I have had a very close association with over a very long period of time. This bill has a 20 to 25-year history before it has come before Parliament today. I therefore thank all those who have worked hard on getting it this far, and I look forward to its further progress.

The National Party will be supporting this bill, because we think it is very important that social workers work towards a position where they can become registered. We think it is very important that every occupational group thinks very seriously about the standards within its own occupation, and, of course, we are a party that has always supported high standards in any occupation, be it social work, engineering, medicine, or any other area.

But I say that this particular bill is a mere shadow of what was expected. There were huge expectations of this bill, particularly from the social work community itself. There was an expectation that it would make a real difference to social workers, by lifting the standards in social work and putting in place a better system of registration. Initially, even the Government was looking at mandatory registration for those working within the Government sector. That is why I think it is a bit of a shame that the Government has made an about-turn when it comes to the provisions that relate to the Government sector.

In Mick Brown’s report in December 2001, which was a very important report, it is stated that the introduction of social worker registration should be given urgency. At the time, the Minister told his Cabinet colleagues that he wanted to have this bill in place by the middle of 2001. Now, here we are, nearly 2 years later than that, having only got as far as this with a very watered-down version of what was originally intended. Originally, it was intended that social workers from the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services and from other Government agencies would be required to work towards registration. We all understood that that would have been an administrative issue for a lot of social workers, but we felt that it was important that the Government put a peg in the ground to say that was the standard it expected of Government-employed social workers, and, in particular, those who exercise statutory powers—in relation to that, those social workers who work specifically with children.

That provision has been removed, which was quite a shock, I suppose, not only to the social work sector but also to the Minister himself. When we look at some of the Cabinet papers of the time, we see there was actually a Cabinet recommendation that “all statutory social work functions must be performed by registered social workers. The Minister of Social Services and Employment should require CYFS to include in their purchase agreement that registered social workers must be employed for social work positions, and incremental targets negotiated”. Also, a transition period of 6 years or more was to be allowed to give time for existing Child, Youth and Family Services social workers to gain qualifications required for registration, and one permanent position on the board was to be reserved for a person from Child, Youth and Family Services. That has all gone now. Only some months later all those recommendations by Cabinet had to be rescinded.

Why was that? It was because the Government had not done its homework. When the Government turned round to the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services and told it what the obligation would be, the department said that 44 percent of its front-line staff did not have any qualification at all, and that only 55 percent of the social workers who joined it as new employees had qualifications. Basically, the department advised that that standard was not possible. It would also, in terms of training costs, have cost about an additional $2 million a year to train Child, Youth and Family Services employees up to the level where they could be registered.

I see that as an administrative hurdle, but not as a reason to give up working towards higher standards in social work altogether. The Minister is right on one thing: all New Zealanders deserve to know that when they are working alongside a social worker, that worker is of a certain quality and standard, and has done certain things. That is not to say that life experience is not important, but when we look at registration I think it is important that we put a peg in the ground that works towards a higher standard of service, because social workers are dealing with New Zealand’s most vulnerable people.

This bill is nothing more than a shell of what it was. Most of the provisions have been watered down, and the bill no longer applies to those social workers who work within the Government sector. Registration is totally voluntary, which means people can either decide to call themselves a social worker, or not to do so. Yes, there is provision that only registered social workers will be able to call themselves that, but the average punter out on the street will not know the difference between a registered social worker and someone who professes to be working in a social work capacity. So the bill has been watered down. Even the Supplementary Order Paper has further watered down the provisions. For example, the maximum total period for which a person may hold provisional registration is extended from 6 to 8 years. For a person seeking temporary registration as a social worker, the period is extended from 6 months to 4 years.

Eight years, as a total maximum period in which to hold provisional registration, is the equivalent of someone’s entire childhood. I do not think that is good enough. I do not think those objectives are ambitious enough. I think that it was possible at least to get the Government sector working towards a higher standard for its social workers, and, really, having been scared off by a bit of resource and administrative cost, the Government has just given up on that obligation altogether. So, if we look at this bill, we can see why the social work sector is very happy to get it into the House, at least. It is 2 years late, but social workers are mainly happy because this bill just brings registration into the House for the first time. I think there are some deep concerns about the quality of this bill, and about what will actually be achieved.

When the State is dealing with New Zealand families, and particularly when it is exercising statutory powers, registration is important. There have been concerns about professionalism, and about the experience and education that is needed. In particular, if we look at some of the high-profile cases that have been in the media of late, we see a lot of the concerns the public have relate to the experience of social workers. When we look at the amount of experience that some Child, Youth and Family Services social workers have, we see the majority of staff have less than 5 years’ experience. That is not to underestimate the quality of some of the social work training programmes and the teaching in a lot of those programmes, but life experience does count, as well. There does need to be a greater source of social workers who have a lot more experience. That is also why we are deeply concerned about the shortages of social workers in this country.

Working as a social worker, particularly with the Government agencies, is not a bed of roses; it is a very tough job to do. Social workers are criticised by a wide range of people when mistakes are made, but, equally, the public has the right to have very high standards. By establishing the registration procedure and working towards having a higher standard of professionalism within the industry, we will all be better off. But, in terms of what the Government has done here in this bill, it is sad to see that many of the provisions have been watered down, and that many of the things this bill aims to do have been slowed down. I think that to be able to sit for 8 years on a provisional registration is appalling. The industry was keen to get this legislation into the House and implemented as fast as possible, so that social workers could start working together as an industry to provide a better service. So it is a shame that the Government has not played its part, and that social workers from Child, Youth and Family Services and other Government agencies have no obligation to be involved in registering, at all. A lot of training needs to be done to be able to take social workers to that level, but it seems that the Government has backed away from that obligation, as well.

We will be raising other concerns that we have about this bill during the course of the debate. We have particular concerns about the issues relating to the treaty, and about some of the more politically correct aspects of this bill. But, in short, I say we will support the bill.

I rise for United Future to support the second reading of this bill. As the Minister has outlined, the bill provides a framework for the registration of social workers. By raising the standard of professionalism for social workers, it is expected that the safety and transparency of social work will increase, for the good of the general public who are served by social workers.

The bill originates from the recommendations of Judge Mick Brown, formerly of the Youth Court, after he had reviewed the service procedures of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services in 2000. He recommended urgent changes to increase the quality of social work.

It is common that when members of the public require the assistance of a social worker, they are in a needy and vulnerable situation that does not need to be further complicated by poor social work practice. Increased public safety is a key aim of this bill, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of the fall-out from social work incompetence. However, it has been recognised that a one-size-fits-all approach to registration would not best serve the present interests of New Zealanders. There are many fine social work practitioners who have had years and years of experience and have a great track record, and who entered social work long before there were any clear requirements or specific tertiary qualifications to be had.

The registration of social workers will come under the Social Workers Registration Board, set up as a Crown entity, and the Social Workers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal. It will include an annual practising certificate for registered social workers, with three tiers of registration: full registration, and limited registration in the form of provisional registration and temporary registration. In respect of full registration, we applaud the matters included in that framework, including the recognition of New Zealand qualifications, the review of competence every 5 years, the requirement that the board be satisfied that a person is considered fit and proper to be practising as a social worker, and the all-important clauses inserted by the Social Services Committee, which we applaud, requiring social workers to have culturally sensitive practice as part of their scope. Obviously, having sufficient practical experience is part of what is required. In respect of provisional registration, there is an 8-year time limitation for existing social workers to qualify for full registration, and that time is allowed for them to become fully upskilled. Special appropriate conditions apply and special restrictions can be applied. Temporary registration is available for people with overseas qualifications, who are either working here temporarily or who are waiting to meet the New Zealand requirements for full registration.

United Future compliments the select committee on the wise way that it has approached the complicated issues that have required grandparenting provisions, so that existing social workers who do not have tertiary qualifications, but who have many years’ experience, can have a pathway to registration. The discussion paper put out by the Ministry of Social Policy in 2000 found that among existing social workers, 57 percent had tertiary qualifications, although it was unclear how many of those qualifications had a direct link to social work. Twenty-four percent had school qualifications, and 19 percent had no formal qualifications, at all. Those people who argue against this bill because registration is not mandatory need to understand that if social workers are to be given the chance to enjoy a professional coming-of-age, then time must be allowed for the current situation to be addressed. This bill includes review provisions that will mean that as professional progress is made over time, mandatory registration could then be considered along with any other issues that may become apparent.

It is interesting that the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers recently made a submission to the Health Committee, requesting that social workers be included under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill. Although there is some doubt as to whether the breadth of setting in which social workers operate makes that bill an appropriate measure under which this profession should be regulated, the request further indicates the very real need felt by social workers for a framework to operate under. There has been concern for many years about the lack of credibility of social work as a profession, and at the same time there has been growing disquiet amongst the public, and, in particular, consumer groups, that people in that occupation are not as accountable or the practice as transparent as is considered desirable.

One of the problems faced by those wanting to legislate for safe practice is that defining social work is difficult. The International Federation of Social Workers, which is an international body with over 80 member countries that approves the ethical standards and principles that are binding on the social work occupation in each member country, acknowledges that difficulty. The focus of this bill is not to define social work; that is always the job of the professional bodies. The focus is to establish the legislative framework that supports and facilitates professional credibility and status. For that reason, United Future is pleased to support the passage of this legislation.

New Zealand First supports this bill. It has been on the Order Paper for a very long time, and we are pleased to see that at long last it has reached this stage. We all know in this Parliament that social work is becoming an increasingly challenging occupation; that has become very evident over the last few months, with some very high-profile cases. We read about an increasing number of young people who have had problems in their lives, and some of them should have been identified and assisted further by social workers. This occupation is becoming increasingly complex. Social workers make decisions that impact irreversibly on the lives of children and their families, and as MPs we all receive letters and calls about those cases. A registration system for social workers is absolutely vital, as that puts some emphasis back on accountability, and accountability is required in this role, just as it is in other professional roles where people’s lives are involved.

New Zealand First supports the bill in its intent to work towards improving the quality of social work services. It is our view that a registration system will, over time, result in increased protection and safeguards for children and their families, and also for social workers. New Zealand First is aware that the bill in itself will not upskill social workers. But it does provide a framework for ensuring that social work in New Zealand begins to get some of the rigorous discipline that is absolutely required.

Sufficient resourcing and support must also accompany the new registration system. Of course, that does include training. Ongoing supervision will encourage professional development and will provide personal support. It will also ensure that the needs of the client are being adequately met, and that the social worker is very, very clear about his or her role and responsibilities. New Zealand First believes there should be a clear intention for all social workers to be registered, over time. We recognise, too, that this bill will not eliminate poor practice quickly. However, it should begin the process of improving the quality and accountability of social workers. Because social workers are involved with the most vulnerable sectors of society, a quality service is essential. One of the first things that registration will offer social workers is status, and the new registration board should enhance the status of the social work profession.

We know that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services has staff turnover challenges, and registration may be an important tool in the department’s efforts to recruit and train staff. The certainty of professional development usually does attract staff. Recent news releases point to a reduction in the number of full-time students choosing to study for a career in social work. The association of social workers estimates that in the past 5 years there has been a reduction of up to 15 percent in those willing, and trained, to do social work, so the improved image of a department staffed by qualified and registered social workers may also help to attract and retain suitable staff.

We are pleased that only qualified and certified people who have been through a competency process will be able to call themselves registered social workers. Only then can the public be satisfied that a social worker is competent, or is at least deemed to be competent. Social work is becoming increasingly complex, and New Zealand First believes that a registration system will provide a national standard and framework of control for both the roles and the responsibilities of social workers. New Zealand First supports this bill.

It is a privilege to speak in the second reading of the Social Workers Registration Bill. As the current chair of the Social Services Committee I would like to acknowledge and credit the Social Services Committee of the previous Parliament, which dealt with this bill. Therefore I would like to acknowledge the membership of that particular select committee, with its chair, Taito Philip Field, and Mahara Okeroa, Sue Bradford, Helen Duncan, Dr Liz Gordon, Dr Muriel Newman, Jill Pettis, Katherine Rich, Bob Simcock, and Anne Tolley. There are a couple of names there that we have not heard for a wee while, and it is nice to have them mentioned and given credit for having worked on such an important bill.

The registration of social workers will enhance not only competence but also credibility, and give certainty to the public on the quality of service they could receive from people who work in this area. Social workers are extraordinarily vital to some of the current issues that communities around New Zealand are working on and with. As we do have a numbers problem with social workers, we hope that these mechanisms will enhance the work they do and the confidence that the public has in the work they do. It adds to their bona fides in a very positive way. I support the bill.

The Social Workers Registration Bill we are dealing with today is one of those unfortunate pieces of legislation that have been left to languish on the Order Paper for far too long. We first debated this issue in Parliament in October 2001, and the Social Services Committee reported back to the House almost exactly a year ago to the day, in April 2002. In the meantime, the professional organisation for social workers, the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers, has grown quite concerned about the delay. The association has been worried that the original impetus that led to the bill’s development may be lost, and that hold-ups in getting the bill passed may slow down the positive but extensive processes that will be needed to ensure that adequate systems, protocols, personnel requirements, and so on are in place to ensure that the bill is implemented successfully and in a timely way.

The association also sees it as critical that the Social Workers Registration Bill is implemented before the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill, as my colleague mentioned earlier, so that the professional standing of social workers within the health sector is assured prior to their inclusion in that much broader legislation in terms of the health workforce. For these reasons, I am delighted that this bill is finally before the House, and I can assure all concerned that the Green Party will continue to support strongly the long-overdue establishment of a regulatory framework for social workers across all sectors in New Zealand.

I sat on the Social Services Committee that heard submissions on this bill during the last term of Parliament, and was impressed by the overwhelming support for registration from all manner of groups and individuals, not just those with the most direct stake in the bill. However, by the end of the process the Green Party was left with one or two reservations about where the bill had got to. Firstly, we felt that in order to enhance the quality of social work, the bill should reflect a commitment by the Government to work towards the mandatory registration of all social workers within an agreed and specified time frame. We were looking at 10 years. We supported the submissions of the Association of Social Workers and others who called for the registration board to be granted sufficient authority to require eventual compliance from all employers in the public, community, and private sectors to employ only registered social workers. We do understand the arguments presented by the Government and others that the costs of compliance with compulsory registration will be, organisationally, very high—and that is not looking just at money—and that it will take time. But, at the same time, we believe that 10 years should be long enough, and is a goal worth aiming for specifically in the legislation, rather than our leaving it up to later reviews of the Act.

The second reservation we had with regard to the bill was that it lacks specific reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and explicit acknowledgment of the obligations of the Crown, as called for by a number of key submitters. However, after learning that groups such as the Association of Social Workers have accepted with reluctance the omission of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the bill, we did not feel able to pursue this matter without community backing, and join with the association in hoping that it will be looked at closely as part of the first review, 3 years after enactment. The Green Party was also pleased that the select committee, in its deliberations, did agree to recommend changes to the bill that will clarify provisions for Māori as distinct from Pacific Island peoples and other ethnic groups, and that the Social Workers Registration Board will be required to maintain mechanisms such as advisory committees or separate caucuses, with the goal of ensuring that the views of tangata whenua will be available and will be heard.

Overall, we look forward to the passing of this bill and the much-needed enhancement of the social work profession that it encompasses.

I support this bill.

National is supporting the Social Workers Registration Bill, very much because we want to ensure that there are high standards of professionalism amongst social workers. I do note that Minister Maharey pointed out that the genesis of this bill has taken in the order of 20 to 25 years, and I too would like to pay tribute to social workers, who face enormous challenges in their everyday work.

I note that in the 2001 census there were 10,401 social workers in New Zealand. But what I observe, as I go about my electorate work, is that there seems to be a tremendous range of qualifications for social workers. I have certainly seen incidents in my electorate, particularly around Huntly, where situations unfortunately have not been well handled—very, very difficult situations requiring huge levels of skill and huge levels of professionalism. I will cite just two examples. One was a situation where a woman’s husband was found molesting the children. He was sent to jail, and, unfortunately, those children were sent to another family, despite the woman exhorting the department to allow her to keep the children. They were sent to another family, a caretaker family, where they were molested.

On the other side of the coin, I have heard of situations where foster parents who have very high levels of professionalism and great levels of sincerity have taken in children from the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, and they have not been given the full information about those children. The children then have turned round and accused the foster parents of molesting them, and those parents have gone through the horrendous situation of clearing their names. That sort of situation is absolutely a great worry, and explains the huge need for this Social Workers Registration Bill.

I note that of the 37 submissions, the three main concerns were lack of explicit reference to the Treaty of Waitangi, the voluntary nature of the registration system, and the lack of recognition of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers. I would like to concentrate a little on mandatory registration, but before I do so I want to point out that in March 2000 Judge Mick Brown was asked by the Minister of Social Welfare and Employment to undertake reviews into Department of Child, Youth and Family Services procedures. In his report, he noted particularly that he had great concerns about the professionalism of social workers, with particular reference to issues of training, qualification, and supervision. It was observed that only 44 percent of front-line staff and only 55 percent of new staff had a B-level social work qualification, and that there could be difficulties in staff being released for training. He also noted the very high turnover rates.

The report included a variety of recommendations, one of them being that the introduction of social worker registration be given urgency. Here we are, 2½ years later, and if this is urgency in the Minister’s terms, I do not know what urgency is. It has taken 2½ years to start finally implementing the recommendations of Judge Mick Brown.

The second point he made was that by mid-2002 social workers should not be able to exercise statutory powers, except when co-working with registered social workers or members of the police. I hope the Minister will be able to assure the House that that is the case. I fear that it is not the case, and the situations that I cited, in and around Huntly, were such instances. They absolutely illustrate the need to implement the recommendations of Judge Mick Brown, which I am afraid this Minister has sadly neglected.

The third recommendation was that the department must set an agreed percentage of registered staff as a goal that must be realised by mid-2002. Once again, I hope the Minister will give an explanation why he has failed in achieving that recommendation.

After the Judge Mick Brown report, the Ministry of Social Policy published a discussion paper on the registration of social workers. Written submissions were received on that policy paper, focus groups were held, etc., and a summary report was published. The report notes that there is general support for a registration system for social workers. All written respondents considered that registration should be compulsory for statutory Government social workers. Again I ask the Minister what he is doing about that. How far as he got in achieving it? This is a hugely important matter for solving the everyday, practical problems that we see hit the newspapers in New Zealand from time to time. I suggest that the Minister has again failed to achieve the very simple, basic recommendations that Judge Mick Brown submitted almost over 2½ years ago.

With regard to mandatory registration, the bill provides for voluntary registration of social workers. Only registered social workers will have the right to practice under that title, but the bill will not stop people from practising social work. I note that the submitters were concerned that non-registered social workers will not be subject to the complaints and disciplinary processes that will be applied to registered social workers. Again, particularly in the statutory area, it is of huge importance that unqualified social workers will not be subjected to the disciplinary processes that we would absolutely expect them to be subject to. I note that the select committee agreed that all social workers should meet a set standard of practice. I also note that one of the great absences in this bill is that it does not mention supervision or supervised practice, nor continued professional education. If ever there was an area for continuous quality assurance, for peer review, and for quality-improvement activities, it must be within the high-risk area of social work. The bill does nothing to address that. I think that is a huge gap, and I hope the Minister will take that huge gap very seriously.

I note that one of the difficulties not sorted out by the bill is that for registration to be made mandatory the term “social worker” would need to be defined. We have over 10,000 so-called social workers in New Zealand, and, despite a genesis of 25 years for this bill to come about, again the Minister has failed to grapple with the fundamental question of what is a social worker. Surely, once we get into the high-risk area, it is absolutely vital that they are appropriately mandatorily registered in order to ensure that there are high standards and to ensure that the public is appropriately safeguarded.

I also note that the board is required by clause 102 to review the operation of the Act 3 years after full enactment. Again, I think that is absolutely important. It behoves the Minister at the time to do so. It may well not be Minister Maharey, because in 3 years’ time we will have a National Government. We will be ensuring that there is a review of this Act. I have said that we will support it at this stage of events, but this lazy Labour Minister, who has failed to achieve the recommendations of Judge Mick Brown, will, fortunately, not be around to do the quite proper thing that clause 102 suggests, which is a review of the Act.

The last thing I want to talk about briefly relates to the Treaty of Waitangi and ethnic representation. I note that a common criticism by submitters was that the bill does not contain special reference to the treaty. Submitters argued that the treaty is the basis from which social work practice is developed. They say that including explicit reference to the treaty would give recognition to the position of Māori as tangata whenua, and to the right that comes with that position for Māori to determine their own social work processes. I am afraid that I cannot entirely agree with that, but we certainly do support the bill.

I compliment my colleague Steve Maharey on this excellent bill, which will improve the accountability of social workers and improve social services. I am delighted to support the bill.

Here we are again under urgency dealing with the Social Workers Registration Bill. Last time the bill was brought into the House it was under urgency, and here we are again. What a contrast this bill is to the previous bill before the House, the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill. The previous bill was all about deregulation; this bill is all about regulation. We already have self-regulation in the social worker industry, but obviously this Government believes that it cannot trust the industry—the 10,000 social workers in New Zealand—and that it has to come down with the heavy hand of the State.

The Government believes that the State has to step in and take over control of the industry, but it is not doing it. All it is saying is that it is going to register social workers. But it is a Clayton’s bill. It is a Clayton’s regulation, because at the end of the day it is voluntary. Can anyone imagine passing in Parliament a bill that says: “We’re going to regulate an industry, but it’s going to be voluntary.”? I believe that this is the strangest piece of legislation that has been through this Parliament for a very long time.

I tried to think why, if it is to be voluntary, Labour is trying to do it. We have to remember that Labour is a socialist Government, and that socialist Governments love to regulate anything that moves. If it does not move, they simply nationalise it. The basic rule in policy development and passing legislation is that if it is not broken, it does not need to be fixed.

At our hearings in the Social Services Committee, I asked for evidence of a tidal wave of complaints against poor social work practice in New Zealand. There was none. The only major agency that has complaints against it is the State agency. That means that this bill has been brought in to address problems with Child, Youth and Family Services—problems that Mick Brown highlighted in his very good report. Instead of the Government addressing the problems in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, it decided to regulate the whole industry in New Zealand. That is an extreme example of absolutely poor governance, and this bill is a very good example of poor legislation. It makes the Government look tough on poor social work practice, but it is really a Clayton’s bill. It is voluntary, not mandatory.

Mick Brown highlighted huge concerns about competency within the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. Just to refresh people’s memory, this came after the tragic case of James Whakaruru. A number of reports were written about his death, and they found many cracks and holes in the way the department handled that little boy’s case. He ended up dying. Since that time we have seen another high profile case—that of little Lillybing. A whole lot of other cases have also come to the attention of the public of New Zealand—tough cases that the department has been involved in—and cracks have been found in the handling of them. The point is that Judge Mick Brown put forward a plan of action for dealing with systemic failure within the department. I asked the Minister how many recommendations from Judge Mick Brown he had actually put into practice, and he will not tell me. Clearly the Minister is not on top of his job.

Since Judge Mick Brown highlighted those problems within the department, 4,000 unallocated cases of potential child abuse have occurred. Hundreds of those cases were registered as critical and were not seen within the statutory 24 hours. The very urgent cases were not seen within 2 days, and so on. We have had an escalation of the number of children being taken from their homes, put into care, and not being returned to their homes. We have had low morale within the department as it has been restructured time and time again. We found out that the number of social workers with less than 5 years’ experience increased from 67 percent in 2001 to 74 percent in 2002.

So we have a picture of an extremely troubled department. Not only that, we also know that it does not follow best practice. In the corporate world, in most other places, best practice is followed. If one agency is doing well and another one under the control of the same department is not, then it is best practice to find out what is going right and spread it around. The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services does not do even that. It is an agency that has systemic failure that needs to be addressed.

This bill will not address the problem, at all. The reason is that the Minister decided he wanted all statutory social workers to be registered within 6 years. He took the idea to Cabinet, and Cabinet agreed that it would be a very good idea to register them. But some months later, after the Minister had consulted a bit more, he found that it was not a good idea for all statutory social workers to be registered when social workers in non-Government agencies and private practitioners do not need to be. He said that that was not fair, and did a U-turn. He asked Cabinet to change its mind on registering all social workers in Child, Youth and Family Services involved with statutory responsibilities. The real reason is that he suddenly figured out that registering all the social workers in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services would cost around $30 million. That is the real reason the Minister did a U-turn and changed his mind. So we now have a bill that he talks tough on—a bill that he will not even ensure his own department abides by.

This is disgraceful legislation, because it raises many hopes in New Zealand that social work standards will improve. There is nothing wrong with trying to improve social work standards. In fact, it is an honourable goal. But this bill, being a voluntary bill, will not do that. It will create two classes of social workers—those who can afford the $14,000 and those who cannot. The ones most likely to afford it will be those who are employed by the Government. We will end up with Government agencies with registered social workers and private practitioners not being able to register.

The training of social workers is another problem I would like to raise. When the private sector was invited to provide tertiary education, a number of providers decided that distance social work courses were a really good idea, because then social workers could continue in their jobs while quietly working towards registration and building their qualifications. But this Government has come in, and, like a great big Godzilla, has slapped down private training providers. Basically, the Government wants to get rid of private providers from the tertiary education sector. The people who will be hurt will be those very social workers who would like to improve and increase their qualifications. Distance course providers will find that all of a sudden they cannot do it anymore.

So, I say to the Minister that as he is the Minister responsible for tertiary education, as well, and if he really does have a goal or raising the standards of social workers in New Zealand, then he has to promote distance education in the social work field. He has to promote the involvement of the private sector in that, because the polytechnics and the universities will simply not be able to provide the number of courses needed. He needs to have a holistic approach to this issue, and he has to tell himself that the raising of standards starts at home. He is the Minister responsible for social services, and it is up to him to sort out the problems in that department. If it is because the structure of the department is obsolete and we need to look at different models, then he needs to do that before he tries to regulate everyone.

LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere): I am proud to stand in support of this bill. Social workers have been calling for legislation to support and regulate the profession for many years. This bill fulfils a pre-election commitment and is yet another example of this Government keeping its word.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): It is good news that we have legislation that will provide a framework for increasing the professional standards of social workers. That is good. But what that member and Labour have failed to do is to provide legislation that will actually work and do the job.

I commend my colleagues Katherine Rich and Paul Hutchison, who, in the second reading debate, put a clear argument regarding some of the bill’s major deficiencies. I want to speak to those. First of all, I want to put on the record just how important social workers in our community are. When we read of the tragedies that occur with children, we see that it is social workers in practice who are making the decisions—life and death decisions—that affect the children of this country. That is why this National Party stands for high standards in that profession.

I have a number of questions I would like the Minister in charge of this legislation to answer in respect of the detail that none of the other Labour members want to talk about. The first one relates to the gross inconsistency of this Government to occupational regulation and why it does not trust social workers. The bill is about State control of the profession, and that is an oxymoron. State control of the profession will not deliver high professional standards. It is by giving control to a profession and trusting a profession that we get the very best from it. None of those characteristics are in this bill. [Interruption]

I ask the Clayton’s member opposite why it is, for instance, when it comes to my own profession, the engineering profession, that the Government says the members of the board will be appointed by the profession itself. The Government supported that. But when we come to this bill, it says that every member of the Social Workers Registration Board will be a Government appointee. Why the inconsistency? Can Ms Pettis, the member opposite who is giving me a dirty look, answer? Why does the Government trust the professions of nursing, engineering, electricians, lawyers, and accountants but does not trust the profession of social workers? The silence is deafening. People on this side of the House expect some consistency around occupational regulation. Mr Maharey needs to get his head clear and come up with something constructive. The Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers is a perfectly good professional organisation that has set up a set of professional standards. It has set a benchmark. There are hundreds of social workers out there in New Zealand, including my wife, who have gone through all the work to get registered with the association and are now being told they have to go back to base one. Is that going to make sense? Is that a sensible way in which to manage the profession of social workers? I suggest that it is not.

Then we see the level of prescription. The bill has more than 200 clauses that monitor all manner of things and go into all sorts of detail that I think is grossly unnecessary. Why do we not trust the profession to develop sensible rules regarding the level of qualification a person should have to be able to be registered? What are the professional standards associated with the conduct and the ethics of a profession? We trust every other profession to do that. Why is it, when we come to this profession, we do not? The Government’s most recent legislation that dealt with the registration of a profession was the Teachers Council legislation. It said that it would allow members of the profession to sit on the council and make the decisions. What is it about social workers? Why is it that we do not trust them? Why is it that we have a separate, and different, set of rules when it comes to that particular profession? I simply do not understand.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: It wouldn’t be the first time.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Would Mr Clayton Cosgrove explain to me why we trust the teaching profession to be involved in setting standards and appointing members to the Teachers Council but do not trust the social workers profession to appoint—

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Read the bill.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have read the bill. If the member reads the schedule he will see that the Minister will appoint all the members of the Social Workers Registration Board. Why is that?

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Read the bill.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have read the bill. That member is the sort of flunky member we have on the Labour side. Those members cannot answer the substantive questions. The substantive question here is: why is it, when it comes to accountants, doctors, engineers, plumbers, and electricians we trust those professions to develop the rules and to run their own professional body, but when it comes to social workers we do not? Again, we have absolutely no explanation at all from Government members, and that is an issue I will be pursuing in the Committee stage.

The second great contradiction is that when it comes to the early childhood sector, this Government has passed regulations that completely ignore experience. I know of people who have worked in the early childhood sector for 35 years. They are excellent teachers. This Government has come along and cut them off. It said that, no, it does not trust them and it is not going to allow them, after 2005, to continue to work in early childhood centres. Yet this bill says that we are to respect those people that have experience in the sector. Well, both sectors deal with children. The bulk of the issues managed by social workers in New Zealand are to do with children, so why is it that we say experience does not count when it comes to early childhood workers, but when it comes to social workers it does? I would have thought one would come to some sort of consistent approach. We on this side of the House think that experience matters. We are prepared to accept both early childhood workers and social workers who can show they have the experience to set high professional standards. Why does the Government not do that? Why does it have a different view? We have no explanation, at all, in that regard. It is a double standard, and it is not good enough.

Further, why does it take 200 finicky clauses to regulate the social work profession, yet most other professions are being regulated by a fraction of that number? For instance, if we take engineers—of which there are over 15,000 in New Zealand—only 40 clauses regulate them. Only a fifth of the number are required. This bill is far too prescriptive. It sets out all sorts of little details. For goodness’ sake! The people involved should be able to sort those details out for themselves.

💬 John Carter: It almost sets out what they have to have for lunch.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The bill is almost as bad as that—it may as well set that out. If members look at the clauses and the schedules, and at the level of detail, they will see they go way beyond what is reasonable. Basically, it is because the Government does not trust the profession. The Government wants to prescribe and over-regulate every single aspect. My worry is that this will add a whole lot of cost, when far more sensible regulation would not have required it. Why do we have to prescribe for an annual practising certificate every year? The engineers do one every 5 years—

💬 John Carter: They just make the decisions.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They just make the decisions. Mr Maharey believes it is best. This bill has quite draconian powers. The Minister of Social Services and Employment can, with no reason at all, sack any member of the Social Workers Registration Board. Does that apply in respect of any other profession? Is a Minister able to sack a person who regulates engineers, accountants, or electricians? No, he is not able to. No, we do not have that sort of thing. The reason is that this Minister runs such a mess of a social policy ministry—and the Child, Youth and Family Services—that he does not want the Social Workers Registration Board to send any missiles the Government’s way. If the Social Workers Registration Board has some hard things to say about the Government, it will get fired. No reasons have to be given—its members will just be sacked. This is not much better than the sort of thought police we have in other areas.

The strength of an independent body is its independence from the Government. The professional people—whether doctors, engineers, or accountants—should be able to express their free will without the axe that hangs over professional boards like the Social Workers Registration Board. This bill should have provided for legislative backing for the term “registered social worker”, and allowed that to be transferred to the perfectly competent Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers that we are proud to have in this country.

Amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 147 and schedules