Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill

I hesitated just for a moment because I was hoping that the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, would take the first call to explain in detail the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that she has delivered to this House, SOP 187. It’s a fairly significant SOP, and so I know that this side of the House has a lot of questions about it. As I said, I was hesitating because I hoped the Minister might’ve, you know, kind of taken the charge to take us through it in detail.

So I’ll start from where we are. For those that’ve just tuned in, this is the committee of the whole House stage of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill. I want to make sure it’s very clear from the outset of my comments: this was a piece of legislation that was introduced when National was in Government, by the Hon Anne Tolley. She did a wonderful job in introducing the legislation to the House, so I want to start by putting my acknowledgments in front of the House.

I also want to note, at this point, that in the first reading, in August 2017, it was a piece of legislation that was unanimously supported by the House, and that’s not a particularly common occurrence in this House, which, hopefully, provides a bit of a context for some of the discussions and some of the questions that will follow for myself and also my colleagues.

In terms of the select committee process, one of the things that I think is important to note is that the departmental report was produced by officials, and there weren’t actually many recommendations for change, based on the many wide and various submissions that were made. I want to particularly thank the submitters, who, as all submitters do, put a lot of effort in to the comments they made to the select committee. They do that because they anticipate that those views will be taken into consideration seriously by the select committee to ensure that we have a better piece of legislation, and, fundamentally, that is the process of the select committee. So, in this Part 1 debate, I think it’s important just to kind of set a bit of a background of understanding so that those who are listening or watching this debate understand what’s occurred.

So the departmental report has some changes, but actually not anything too significant. One of the challenges was that there were a large number of issues that were raised by submitters, because their commitment was to ensure this was the best possible piece of legislation. Members all around the table—and I want to actually also put on record that the Social Services and Community Committee has a very constructive way of working together, and my belief was that it was also incredibly constructive on this particular piece of legislation.

There was only one issue, but it’s a fairly significant issue, and that was that there was a very short report back required for this piece of legislation. Again, you know, to be fair, some of that was around process of elections after the first reading, change of Government, and I accept that. So submissions were called for in December, and submitters had to provide their submissions by 31 January. The challenge is, and was, that the report back was in April, and that made the ability of the select committee to give its due work and scrutiny on this legislation, with the intention, given that everybody supported it in the first reading, to really listen to those that were using and served by this legislation to ensure that it was the best piece of legislation possible.

The Minister had indicated last night that there would be good opportunity in the committee stage. She expected full and detailed questions, particularly around an SOP, because the SOP and the changes there didn’t have the scrutiny of the select committee. So that’s why colleagues on this side of the Chamber will have a number of questions around that, and we want to ensure that this SOP is given due regard.

There were a number of submitters who raised significant concerns about the workability of the bill. So this debate is not about what the bill will do; it’s about how it will occur. So, yes, we all want mandatory registration for social workers. Yes, we want to ensure that the standards and professionalism of this sector is lifted. Yes, we want to ensure that anyone who works with a social worker is working with someone that has been police-vetted and is registered and that they can be assured of their quality. But where a lot of the discussion occurred in the select committee, and the concerns that were raised by multiple submitters—and I know some of my colleagues are going to use examples and consider individual submitters’ concerns that were raised. What was really unfortunate was that although the select committee was well aware of the concerns, the officials didn’t recommend significant changes, and they didn’t recommend changes to the scope of practice, which was an area that many submitters thought should be included in the legislation.

So the National Party members on the committee, in terms of the minority view—which I thought I would just make sure is on record—“were concerned that, given the restricted timeframe, the committee was unable to address fully submitters’ concerns and, had an extension of time been granted, we would have been able to fully consider submitters’ issues.” So that’s the context for this debate: a shortened report back, a request to extend it, and a request that was denied by Labour members. And so we weren’t able to fully and thoroughly tease out the issues that were raised, and so none of that was included in the select committee’s work.

At the end of the day, that is the job of a member of Parliament, and I have had some feedback from someone today, asking why National was being negative. Well—newsflash—the job of the Opposition is to hold the Government to account and to provide scrutiny of legislation, and when scrutiny of legislation and SOPs of this particular size—how many pages are we up to; 67 pages, and it’s not the first time it’s happened—then, absolutely, we must give it our thorough and diligent work. If we can’t do it in the select committee and we’re forced by the Government to do it on the floor of the House in the committee of the whole House, then that’s absolutely what we will do.

One of the issues, and this is just around Part 1, and I’ll come to it in the next debate, which will be a separate debate that will be on Part 1A—that’s a completely new part; so the focus of this is really just Part 1, and this Part 1 goes into the purpose and the interpretation of the Act, which, as I said, nobody disagrees with why this piece of legislation is important or that it must be passed. But there are some challenges around the process that’s been undertaken so far and the ability to incorporate some of the changes that submitters had said would improve the legislation. So, you know, our commitment in this committee of the whole House is to ensure that we do end up with a bill that we believe will deliver to the concerns of those submitters. So, in terms of asking questions about the changes in, for example, section 4 in clause 5 in Part 1, in the interpretation section around “scope of practice”, and, again, in new clause 5A, there’s further definitional issues there regarding the recognition of the New Zealand qualification.

So one of the primary questions that I do want the Minister for Social Development to answer is: given the officials and the departmental report did not recommend any changes and any incorporation of the scope of practice, what changed?

Just before I call the next speaker, can I just say to the member who’s resumed her seat that there is not a separate Part 1A. Supplementary Order Paper 187 inserts a new Part 1A into Part 1, so we have the debate on Part 1, the debate on Part 2, the debate on the Schedules, and then the debate on clauses 1 and 2. So Part 1A is not a separate part.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I was going to stop to allow a few speeches before I got to my feet, but I thought, actually, I will respond to the Hon Louise Upston, just to provide the context that she’s asked for with regards to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187 that is being introduced into Part 1 here today. Can I just say, before I go into the SOP—just to give it a little bit of context even further back—we need to keep in mind here that the original social workers registration legislation was introduced in 2003. At that time, it was a voluntary system, but with the intention that we would transition to a mandatory system. The intention, however, was not to wait 16 years. So this is a long time overdue and so, can I say, there is a sense of urgency with regards to the overall time frame, and I think it is, as I’ve said, way overdue and it is time that we moved on this.

To put it into context again, there was a member’s bill introduced to the House in 2015 by myself that didn’t have the support of the Government at the time, but then there was an inquiry that was instigated by the Government through the Social Services Committee in 2016. However, we still only got to the point where a bill was introduced to this House the day before the House rose prior to the election. So it has been a very slow process, I have to say.

Now, with respect to the SOP and the concerns that have been raised about whether or not we have a mandate or whether or not we’ve gone through correct process, it’s really important to note that something like 70 percent of the submitters asked that there be provisions in the legislation for scopes of practice. Seventy percent of the submissions that came through indicated that they wanted there to be provisions for scopes of practice.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: So why didn’t the officials recommend it?

The question that’s coming from the member to my left, the Hon Louise Upston, is why the officials did not include it. The officials were really clear that they felt that the purpose of the bill that was introduced by the previous Government was much more narrow in that it was focused on protecting the title as opposed to the role that was being undertaken by a social worker. So, as a Government, and as a Minister, we had to make the decision whether we would extend out beyond what the original intent of the bill was. So that is the decision that I’ve made as the Minister, that, actually, I thought, yes, we should, because what I didn’t want was for us to end up waiting another 16 years before we consider the next part of this, which is exploring scopes of practice.

To be fair, I have to say I was nervous about the idea of trying to formulate scopes of practice in such a condensed period of time, but we managed to negotiate that position so that the SOP allows for the creation of those scopes of practice, but they are not included in the legislation. We haven’t rushed ahead with the creation of those, and so I think that it is actually a very well-thought-through process. I have to say that with regards to the SOP, the Ministry of Social Development has been working closely with social workers through the Social Work Alliance, which is a cross-sector representation body of social workers. It includes the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers, it included the Social Workers Registration Board, it includes Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association, and it includes—the member Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki read them all out last night, and now I can’t remember all of the organisations. But it basically includes all of the representative bodies and people that have a vested interest in ensuring that the profession is protected and those that they’re there to serve are protected. So this has been well-thought-through and hasn’t just been developed by the Ministry of Social Development. It has been done working closely with the Social Work Alliance and with social workers. We did that to ensure that we were reflecting the needs and best interests of the social worker sector and, as I said, the people that they work for.

Just to run through what the changes are, the following changes have been made to the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill through this SOP, and here we go. The provisions that have been inserted for scopes of practice for social workers will be based on a longstanding approach in the health sector where each profession defines what its practitioners’ qualifications and skills are, including specialisations as needed. They provide a clear statement of what can be expected of a social worker, as well as a basis for professional accountability.

It also includes a new offence, which has been created to enforce existing confidentiality obligations about client information. I don’t think anyone would argue that that isn’t the right thing to do. Employers will be required to report concerns about a social worker’s competence to the board if the employee resigns or is dismissed for reasons relating to their competence.

A new power has been created that requires people to supply information needed to prove that someone is claiming to be, or is practising as, a social worker without being registered. It has been clarified that the Minister is able to issue a direction under section 103 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 concerning registration policy, but not relating to the registration of individual social workers, by inserting the word “individual” before “social workers” in section 102 of the Social Workers Registration Act 2003.

The requirement that non-practising social workers can be required to cancel their registration has been removed. The board is now mandated to recognise ways of undertaking professional development as a required function. The SOP also included a number of other administrative changes and improvements around the operation of the Social Workers Registration Act and to align it more closely to the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act.

So I think we’ve been really clear, and I know that there are concerns from the Opposition about process, but, as I said, we’re looking at a process that’s gone back 16 years here, and we don’t want to wait another 16 years to amend the bill to actually put in there a provision around scopes of practice—it’s unnecessary. We know that this is what the sector overwhelmingly desires to happen here. We know that it’s not just in their best interests but it’s in the best interests of the people that they’re there to serve.

We know that the submissions reflect the need for this to happen, and those submissions, obviously, were given directly to the Social Services and Community Committee. So what I will say is that I would hope that we can get agreement in the committee today, because this has been one of those issues where we’ve had cross-Parliament support for this. We know why it’s important. Yes, there’s a minor change in that we have extended beyond what the original intent of the bill was, but I don’t think that that’s unreasonable, actually. We’re here to make changes that benefit New Zealanders, and, as I said, why would we wait any longer when we don’t need to?

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s an honour to speak in this stage. I want to take up the words that were spoken in the second reading of the bill last night by the Minister for Social Development, in which case she indicated that there would be a provision to allow for a robust process of debate in committee stage, also too confirmed by the other members of the Social Services and Community Committee as well; that’s what the committee stage is for. So I hope that because we didn’t have that during select committee, we will be able to have this during this process here.

The Minister talks about the 16 years. I too was the chairperson of the Social Services Committee in 2016 that commissioned the inquiry on behalf of the Government to look into managing registration around social workers, and also some of the other issues that were there as well. The Minister talks about 16 years and the process that it’s taken. We all agree; we’re here at this point in time. The issue of concern, though, that we raised last night also is around process, and I want to read from, for instance, one of the 70 percent of those submitters who also asked whether there would be a scope of practice included. This is from the New Zealand Public Service Association (PSA), and it states this: “It is the view of the PSA that the lack of a scope of practice will contradict and actively work against the stated intentions of the bill in the following ways:”, and it begins to list what those ways are. Minister, you’ve talked about the fact that—let’s not wait for 16 years; let’s make sure that we are putting together a bill that will last for another 16 years and beyond. There was enough information here that would’ve allowed us to be able to have that process and have the information so we didn’t have to go through another Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). Minister, we made a request to extend that time; that did not happen. I just want to put that on the record. I do not agree with that, but hence we’re here today.

So I’d like to pose a question, because that’s what the committee stage is about: posing some questions to the Minister in this regard. Now that we have, and are looking at having, a scope of practice that is included in the bill through this SOP 187, I want to ask this question: what is the process for someone challenging the scopes of practice? In other words, while we have it here, it will be generic. In other words, it’s stating the intent of the scope of practice, but I want to ask the Minister, then, what’s the process that she has in place so that, number one, what is the process for someone challenging the scopes of practice? Inside the submissions that were made in regards to this bill, there are varying views around what those scopes of practice would be. In fact, in one of the submissions around Aotearoa social workers was in regards to those who practise kaupapa Māori, for instance. They were asking about this, they were saying, “Who will define practices under the scope that deal with, for instance, kaupapa Māori, those who, for instance, are Whānau Ora social workers?”

So I genuinely want to ask the Minister to consider this, and I’m sure she has: what is the process for someone to challenge the scope of the practice? What will it include? We know that there are a range of complexities in regards to social work practice: issues around mental health, issues around different ethnic groups that are there. So what is the challenge to that?

The second question to that, then: who do they challenge to, and what parameters do they have to meet in order to properly challenge the scope? So it’s around a bit more of the process, a bit more around the aspect of how, who, and what is that. And the last part of that is: how is their challenge considered, and who considers it? Will it be the Social Workers Registration Board, as the regulator? Will it be the different associations? Will there be a collective advisory committee that will do that? I think that’s important because that’s the reason why—and, again, I don’t want to harp on too much—we wanted to have an extension of time that would allow for those who are making submissions, those who are the providers, those who are the associations to give them a chance to ask these very questions. We don’t have that, so hence the reasons why, in this committee stage, I’d like to put these questions to the Minister so that she can be able to answer them as well.

The second part of that is, having declined an extension to select committee in regards to this process over nine months, will the Minister then consider what the process is, after the bill has been enacted and has the Royal assent, around the fact of engaging into the wider associations in regards to the regulations of the scopes of practice as well? So there are a series of questions that are there. I’d like to put them to the Minister. It’s also post the bill being passed; then it’s around the operational side of that, in those scopes of practice. I know because these were some of the questions that were being asked by the submitters—I’d like to put them to the Minister, and I hope that she’ll be able to respond to them. Again, this is the committee stage. We want a robust conversation. I look forward to the responses by the Minister to these questions in the committee.

Good evening, tēnā koe, Madam Chair. It’s a privilege to contribute to tonight’s committee of the whole House on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill—anyway, I go on. Last night, I spoke about my experience as a registered social worker; so I think that tonight it’s only appropriate that I go through that process, because it then demonstrates why this makes sense, why the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187 makes sense. Registration is only as good as the integrity of the process—only as good as the integrity of the process.

In 2007, I was a youth justice manager. I didn’t have social work on my title—job description—at Child, Youth and Family, but I wanted to be a good example as a leader, to go through the process so that I was able to show a good example to my staff. So, in 2007, I went through the robust process of becoming a registered social worker. What I like about Part 1 is that it actually says what a social worker is. A social worker is referred to here as a practising social worker, in new section 5A, in terms of scopes of practice.

So, in 2007, I received my registration. Five years later, I needed to renew my competency certificate. I’ve gone through managing a whole group of people who were practitioners, who were practice leaders, who were supervising social workers, and who were social workers. So I’ve gone through managing and leading that side, but what had happened was that five years later, in 2012, I needed to renew my competency certificate. So what that meant was that I had to demonstrate that I’d been practising as a social worker for the last five years and had gone through that process. I tried many times with the Social Workers Registration Board to say “I am now no longer practising as a social worker, and can I come off the registration list as a non-practising registered social worker?” That took two years of to-ing and fro-ing from the Social Workers Registration Board. Then, in 2014, I lost the battle. I went through the whole process just so I could get my competency certificate because the Social Workers Registration Board was going to take me to court because I wasn’t complying.

So, in allowing the board to set the scope of practice, actually, it takes—and my process, in terms of the two years it’s taken for me to say “I am a non-practising social worker” to actually having to sit my competency assessment again; a whole lot of people were involved in that process. It took up a lot of the time of the Social Workers Registration Board to come to-ing and fro-ing to me to make sure that I sat my competency certificate. All the managers on top of me said, “You need to do this, this, and that.”

So what this does is it actually takes that away—takes that away. It describes what a social worker is and what you need to do to become a social worker. As stated by the Minister Carmel Sepuloni last night and today, it allows the Social Workers Registration Board to set the scope of practice. That way, when you do say—I say to people that I’m a registered social worker, and some academics just roll their eyes. They just roll their eyes, because I go back to the integrity of the process. People didn’t believe that waiting five years to re-sit your competency was enough for you to say that you are fit and proper to practise.

This Part 1 actually gives the board the power to be able to move with the times, to be able to provide appropriate training, as time goes by, to social workers. And I’ve noticed that we’ve mentioned 16 years, 5 years—I’ve mentioned two years and whatnot. In 100 years’ time, when we’ve all gone and I’ll become compost somewhere, what would be the value of our social work practice? What would that look like in 100 years’ time? Let’s not talk 16 years; let’s talk 100 years because that is really what this is. It’s about setting standards, allowing the Social Workers Registration Board to set the scope of practice because, from my experience, it was two years of wasting people’s time. I think I’ll end it there in terms of my contribution to Part 1. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. [Interruption] I know; it’s a terrible disappointment. I know some good people who could help you work through this.

Can I acknowledge the member who’s just taken her seat, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki. Be optimistic about those 100 years. Modern healthcare is incredible, so be optimistic. Secondly, thank you actually for sharing some of your story. I don’t think, from this side, there’s any concern about the “why” of this bill, the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill; it’s more elements of the “how”. My honourable colleague, Louise Upston, had indicated earlier, as I had, and others yesterday, that there are questions around how this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) has come about and why the rush. I do take on board that it’s been 16-or-so years but, that said, it still does not provide, if you will, an excuse to rush things forward.

I know that the Minister Carmel Sepuloni, when she touched on the SOP, said that 70 percent of 74 submitters spoke around scopes of practice, which is great. I’ve had the good fortune, even though I didn’t sit on the Social Services and Community Committee, to read through them. That’s still 70 percent, I would argue, that needs to be interrogated, in the best sense of the word, through select committee. The 30 percent that didn’t speak to scopes of practice or spoke against the concept need to be heard.

We are primarily on Part 1, and I know within that there’s a Part 1A. I’m going to, at this point, keep my discussion to the first clauses of Part 1. I suppose, fundamentally, this is about the concept of a scope of practice. Having chaired the Health Committee, scopes of practice are an incredibly important factor in the medical profession and, rightly understood, should be an important part of social workers as well. There are probably some questions—not now but for later—about whether or not we should have actually engaged the existing scopes of practice legislation and brought social workers into that. I suspect that could have been somewhat controversial. The Minister may be able to address that because other—well, the first debate becomes instantly whether social work is part of health. Arguably, I’d say, it is, but I could imagine, had we had a select committee process, that health practitioners—be they doctors, nurses, podiatrists, optometrists and others—may have wanted to have a say. But it probably is the initial question to the Minister of whether she considered having scopes of practice not within a separate bill—as it is at this stage, under the Social Workers Registration Act—but whether or not social work scopes of practice could have been included within the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act as it sits.

In new clause 4 of Part 1, the determining of a scope of practice is to be inserted. It’s one line; it’s a simple line. I think it just needs to be acknowledged once again, though, that this is a major, major step and change; and the member who has just resumed her seat began to indicate why.

In new clause 5—and it’s where I’ll spend, initially, most of my time—we have quite a change from what the select committee itself suggested to what has now appeared in the SOP. Because we have not had an opportunity in select committee to engage, I would welcome understanding this a little bit more. So, first and foremost, we now have two definitions being repealed. I do, I think, understand why “registered social worker” has been repealed, but the definition of “particular condition” raises a question for me of why that’s been removed. Is that absolutely necessary? I think some of the discussions we’ve had already tonight, but certainly yesterday, were about exploring the wide variety of activities that a social worker undertakes. Therefore, ipso facto, if they’re doing a wide range of work, there must be a wide range of particular conditions. So I’m curious to understand why that has been removed.

We’re also seeing, in new clause 5(2), actually, a whole array of new interpretations being put in. So the select committee removed the notion of “restricted work”. I assume, but I’m very happy to be corrected, the reason that was taken away is because, through the scopes of practice, it’s going to define what is within work—so, unrestricted—and what is to remain restricted. But, again, it would be interesting to understand from the Minister—again, seeing as we haven’t interrogated it further—why restricted work has now been removed from her SOP changes in Part 1, new clause 5.

We also have now the addition of a prescribed qualification brought in. It’s defined here. It means: “a qualification prescribed by the Board under section 5B”. Now, at one level, it makes perfect sense. The question, Minister, is: is this a qualification-setting ability or mandate or delegation of the board, or is there going to be a reliance on—as with just about every other qualification—the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA)? So it’s a simple question. I’m very happy to be told, at whatever point, that I’ve missed something significant, particularly in new section 5B, set out in new clause 6A in Supplementary Order Paper 187. But the long and short is most qualifications are, if you will, given, prescribed by the likes of the NZQA or a university or a polytech—I’d better use the singular seeing as it sounds like there’s a proposal to merge every polytechnic. But, at the moment, it reads as if a qualification can be prescribed by the board. Now, I assume they’ll be looking towards polytechs, universities, and others to do so, but are we opening up a possibility here that actually the board itself could decide to say “We’ve just created this qualification.” and that will be fine? I think that should be looked into.

We also have in the SOP for Part 1 clause 5 a new interpretation or definition of “scope of practice”, and there are actually a number of issues arising here mainly through the nomenclature. It talks about the social work “profession”. So it says here, “in relation to the social work profession, … 1 or more social work services performed by the social work profession …”. It’s unusual writing. A profession, if you will, does not provide the immediate service; a person does—an individual person. A profession, as a whole, oversees, if you will, the care, but in a lot of our legal texts we talk about a person. In other words, I’m surprised that it doesn’t read “in relation to the social worker or work services performed by a social worker as prescribed by legislation”. Instead, we are talking about a profession, and that’s slightly unusual. Again, it’s not necessarily wrong but a scope of practice is, if you will, Minister, put forward by a profession, but it is manifested and enacted by a person, and surely we are aiming at actually describing what a person does, in this case.

We then move on to the question of a difference between the word “performed” and “provided”. So, again, this is in Part 1 clause 5(2), where it talks about social work services being “performed”. It’s not to make light of it; performances aren’t something theatrical here. “Performed” implies it’s done around a person whereas “provided” is something which is given. And I’m very happy to be corrected by those who are far more expert than I or who are social workers, but, by and large, I would understand social work to be something that is “provided” to people. It’s something where a provider—a single person, an entity rather than a profession—is giving something, if you will, rather than “performing”, which is, I would like to stress, something which is done around a person. I suppose you could make an argument that it’s a wraparound service, but, primarily, we’re talking about the provision of a service.

So I suppose I would ask the Minister to explain “scope of practice” or the definition thereof, but I’d be suggesting to her and perhaps to the committee of the whole House tonight, that really we should be saying in relation to social workers it means “one or more social work providers who are providing the social workers that are”—actually, I can’t do it on the fly but I think you get the sense, Minister, of where I’m going; that, really, we do need to look to change the word “profession” to indicate that this is not about the whole profession and then divide down to individuals, but we start with individuals who then form a profession. I think it keeps their individuality respected, but also to talk about the work services as something that is provided, if you will—“gifted”. It’s not really the legal language but it’s gifted to the person rather than performed around them.

I’m probably going to run out of time but I will just indicate that I’d like to take some further calls around what a “social work service” means. I think “service” is well in keeping with something which is provided, but I’m a little concerned, Minister, that, actually, it’s not quite broad enough. I’ve had the good fortune of working alongside a number of social workers over the years and I just can’t help but feel that the wording here is just a little bit limiting. I’m always worried, in this House, about ill-considered consequences. One of the last things I’d like to see after 16 years is that we actually limit what’s happening, but I’ll come back to that in my final calls.

I look forward to contributing to this debate as part of one of the more enlightened parts of the O’Connor clan, which happens as you go further south. Saying that, I do acknowledge that, today, we were very fortunate at select committee, at the quite professional select committee, the Social Services and Community Committee, who behaved quite professionally today, I might say. I commend the members opposite who are members of the Social Services and Community Committee for their behaviour today. Other committees could learn from them.

However, I would like to point out, as we go to Part 1 of the Act, one of the important things here is that section 3(c) is going to be removed, as set out in clause 4 of the bill. One of the actions of the board has been to promote the benefits of registration of social workers, and now that is, obviously, going to be repealed because registration will now become mandatory. I think that’s quite an important clause in that because now we actually focus on what this bill is about. Part 1 is very much about summing up that if you want to call yourself a social worker, you have to be a social worker. Certainly in Part 1 it makes it quite clear.

And, of course, we’ve already heard much discussion about scope of practice. Well, scope of practice—there’s not really much point having a profession if anybody can go and do it, and that’s really what it comes down to. People come to this House from various paths: they come as lawyers, they come as accountants, and they come from a variety of professions, a variety of occupations. In their preliminary speeches here, they’ll stand up and announce and relate what their journey to this House was, and almost invariably they’ll talk about what they did, what their speciality was, and it has become quite clear. What this bill does is put social work really into that category, because up until now, really, there was no sanction for anyone calling themselves a social worker, and as I look, going back to Part 1 of this bill, it really does talk about this, especially new Part 1A with the scope of practice.

Now, “scope of practice”: if we don’t define what it is that a social worker does, then really we could have social workers—I wouldn’t go so far as to say they might be handing out the drugs in a hospital; however, if it suited an employer and there was no real restriction on it, it may well be that they could include that in the job description. This bill ensures that when someone does speak of—and I heard my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki speak of that very thing: her social work, as she went through the transitions she was making. So she now has, as a very proud social worker, left the profession to take on this profession, the scope of which, I might say, is very clearly defined. We know—anyone looking in this Chamber does know—who is a member of Parliament and who is not. We know there are a lot of people here who are far more important than us, do a lot more work, and are far more important for the running of this place. However, it doesn’t matter what they do, they will not be able to call themselves a member of Parliament.

So it goes back to Part 1 of this bill. It just really makes sure that we are now focusing on what a social worker does. That’s why the scope of practice becomes incredibly important in what we do, and so I commend the Minister for ensuring that we are now able to focus on this here. I sat through the select committee. This was brought up by most of the submitters, and, in fact, really the debate was around whether there should be a scope of practice or not. And I believe that, while the difficulties certainly of defining the work were apparent, there was a clear understanding, certainly by myself, that we do need a scope of practice because, as I’ve said before, otherwise anybody—in fact, one of the things mentioned was that there’s also about 8,000 people in the last census who called themselves social workers. Very quickly, if we aren’t careful, that might be down to about 2,000 because, while we will define the practice, what we could do is say, “Right, you are no longer a ‘social worker’.”—just simply change the title but expect people to do the same work, which, again, would be against not only the spirit of this bill but also the whole purpose of ensuring social work takes its rightful place as the profession that it deserves to be. So I certainly will be saying that this is something the Minister has clarified well.

I thought I would just take some time to respond to some of the questions that have been asked about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187 in particular, and, hopefully, I can provide adequate answers to the questions that have been put to myself and to the committee.

We had questions from the Hon Alfred Ngaro with regards to the process for engaging people in formulating the scopes of practice and issues that may arise with challenging the scopes of practice. I think it’s really important to note that the SOP is proposing a period of time for these to be consulted on before they commence—that’s a two-year period of time. So what we’re doing is putting in legislation that they must be formulated, but we’re doing the responsible thing and having a period of time in which the Social Workers Registration Board will take the lead in working with the sector to actually develop the scopes of practice. In terms of what’s required and how they go about that consultation, that’s laid out in new section 5C, and it stipulates really clearly that the board must consult with persons representing views of social workers, with persons representing views of employers of social workers, and with organisations affected by the scopes of practice. So I think that answers some of what the Hon Alfred Ngaro was asking earlier. I think it’s really important to state, too, that the process is not set out in the SOP, because it will be operational and implemented after the bill is passed. So we made that really clear—I thought I made it really clear earlier, but perhaps I didn’t, so it’s important to just go over that again.

The member Simon O’Connor has asked about why the social workers’ scopes of practice couldn’t be included as part of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act (HPCA). That was canvassed, particularly between the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), and I have to say that the Ministry of Health didn’t think it was appropriate—they didn’t want social workers included. They had a really strong rationale, and MSD agreed, and that was because the vast majority of social workers are not in the health system; they’re operating outside. So that’s why the decision was made not to include it as part of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act.

But the consultation on scopes of practice—it was always designed by the sector and also the ministries involved so that it could work in a similar way, and that similar models had worked for other professions. So that’s how we got to the point where it ended up being deemed best that it was done in this way. So MOH supported amending the Social Workers Registration Act using the HPCA Act as a model. Due to the scope and scale of legislative changes, amending the existing Act was agreed by all to be a more straightforward option than moving social work into the HPCA Act. So I think it’s important to note that I think that was a really good question, actually, because I’m sure there may be others that would have a similar question.

Oh, fantastic, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call in the committee stage. We have been waiting a long time to debate the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in question, and I know we’re going part by part, so we’ll narrow it to Part 1. As you’ll recall, in previous debates, the Chair didn’t allow us to—quite rightly—go into the SOP, so it’s a really good chance to go into it now. I want to thank Minister Carmel Sepuloni for fronting up and answering the questions around the SOP. I do want to go to something she said earlier on about the fact that we’ve been waiting 16 long years in order to get this change through. Of course, everybody in this Chamber tonight wants to see the professionalism and the standards of social workers improve, but our point on this side is: could the Minister not have given the select committee two or three more weeks to consider SOP 187, because, as we have pointed out, we do have some serious reservations with being dumped on at the last moment.

I do want to get stuck into, in particular, new Part 1A of the bill, which talks about the scopes of practices. I wasn’t on the Social Services and Community Committee at the time, but having read the commentary there were reservations with the scopes of practice. Yes, 70 percent of submitters said they wanted that included, but the report prepared by the select committee outlined the difficulties with defining the scopes of practice. Had we had the time to consider the Minister’s SOP, we would have been able to actually dive down deeper into that to exactly formulate what is a really important bill. We have all been waiting 16 years; I’m sure we could have waited another two or three weeks to get the process right.

So I want to just, again, go back to new Part 1A of the bill around the scopes of practice. I do have a couple of questions for the Minister in the chair tonight. I do want to ask the Minister who exactly she’s consulted with, with respect to the scopes of practice. So she says that she’s taken on board some of the written submissions—did she follow those submissions up? Has she spoken to some of those organisations that spoke for and against the scopes of practice? That is something that I think needs to be heard, because as my colleague the honourable Simon O’Connor pointed out—

💬 Simon O’Connor: Not honourable—tell me you’re a prophet!

—ha, ha!—30 percent of submitters did not want the scopes of practice. So I think it’s fair to ask the Minister in the chair to front up over who she has, in fact, consulted in terms of the groups. Has she been out into the sector to consult widely over the scopes of practice?

The second thing is around the use of the board to define the scopes of practice. If the Minister believes that this board can, in fact, define the scopes of practice for what is a social worker, why not put it in the legislation itself? Why is it that we need a board to define it? If we are setting the standards and we want to make sure that the 2,000 unregistered social workers become registered, why do we not clarify and use the resources from the select committee to, in fact, define what is a social worker and the scope of a social worker in the relevant legislation. Those are kind of the two broad areas that I would like, as the member for Northcote, feedback on from the Minister tonight.

I want to reiterate that this side of the Chamber is very supportive of the overall legislation. We want to see our social workers valued. We want to see the profession professionalised, standardised, so that it encourages far more people into the sector, because we know and we acknowledge the value that these social workers provide into our society. Thank you.

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]

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.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for Social Development for her contribution, but, unfortunately, the contributions have actually made it even more confusing because of the inconsistencies in her answers. There’s a couple of specific questions I want to ask, because in her first answers, she talked about the fact that with the original bill as introduced in the first reading, which Labour, in their time in Opposition, supported, the scope of the bill was too narrow. She said that, actually, the bill needed to be extended, the scope of the legislation needed to be extended, and the scopes of practice needed to be included, and that is allowing for the creation of it. Then, she’s also saying, in complete contrast to that, these are minor changes in Supplementary Order Paper 187.

So I do want to get real clarity from the Minister: is this a major change, in that we’re significantly changing the scope of the bill because the objectives required in the first bill were too narrow, or is this just a minor change? If it’s a major change, as you outlined when you first addressed this House in the committee of the whole House stage—sorry, Madam Chair; when the Minister addressed the House in this committee of the whole House. If it is that major, then the absolute overreach of ignoring the Social Services and Community Committee and not allowing the select committee to consider this is outrageous. So the Minister needs to make up her mind: is it a significant change, or is it a minor amendment? So that’s my first question. Again, if it is a major amendment and it’s a major scope to the legislation, there’s been plenty of time, since it was reported back in April, for this to come back to the select committee for consideration of that major scope change to the bill as introduced.

Now, I am going to labour the point, because I think it is incredibly important, and I also want to address a couple of the comments that have been made by Labour Party members of the select committee participating in this debate which, again, complicate the issue and create these inconsistencies. Greg O’Connor said, “Yes, the select committee determined that the scopes of practice were required.” So if they were required and the select committee wanted that, why was that not pushed for in the select committee stage? Why is it that the officials’ advice was accepted that scopes of practice didn’t need to be included? So I’m somewhat confused by your contribution, Mr O’Connor—Mr Greg O’Connor, not Mr Simon O’Connor—because you’ve made the point very clearly that you agreed with the submitters who were saying that the scopes of practice needed to be included.

I also want to reflect on another of our select committee members’ contributions and to say it was very useful to have the practical experience of a social worker brought into the House and of the process involved. I want to say to that point that the Social Workers Registration Board, as the regulator, have been incredibly committed to ensuring that the select committee got it right, and, unfortunately, the select committee didn’t have that opportunity. So in the seven months since the report back, why hasn’t this matter been brought back to the select committee for consideration?

One query I do just want to put—because, in a further contribution, I’ll refer to the regulatory impact statement—is that the regulatory impact statement that is on the Table is the one from 1 May 2017, but the most up-to-date one is 26 July 2018. So I’m not sure if the Minister is deliberately trying to exclude that regulatory impact statement from being considered as part of this debate. I do think that’s critical. I do want the Minister to answer the question. The Minister’s not listening right now, but I do want her to answer the question as to why the regulatory impact statement of July 2018 isn’t the one that’s being considered here today, because that has some critical discussion about the risks of the change, about the risks of the sector misinterpreting the inclusion of the scope of practice. So I do want a couple of answers to that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was waiting with bated breath just so that you would call. You’ll be happy to know my contribution will not be talking about the scopes of practice, but they are in Part 1 and I will be talking about the definition of practising as a social worker.

I’d like to put this to the Minister: there were a number of submissions in regards to the definition of social work practice. This is, in particular, in addressing the issue for Māori—for tangata whenua—and I want to read from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, where it talks about the definition. In the reflection that you’ve had with the sector to talk about some issues around the scope, have you also considered these submissions, which were significant, along with 70 percent of the others, that talked about the importance of the definition? I want to read from this, the definition that came from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, where they state this on page 4 of their submission: “Social work is a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promote social change and development…”

The part that I want to move to, though, is where it talks about “Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities and indigenous knowledge,”. Why that becomes important, Minister—through the Chair—is that last year we talked about the Child Poverty Reduction Bill, and not only did we talk about it; we passed that bill with almost the unanimous part of this House. But we recognised the importance of Māori being included in there, and recognising their definition—their opportunity—through the Treaty of Waitangi to be included in that bill.

So has the Minister considered that, especially since the submission that was made by Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association clearly states this: “The workplace may not be the most appropriate determinent of competent social work practice to work with tangata whenua as the determinent(s) may be according to key performance indicators and contractual obligations rather than effective interventions based on rangatiratanga and working collaboratively with tangata whenua families”—whānau—“and young people instead of imposing solutions on [presenting a situation]. The Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association is concerned that the proposed amendments will ultimately: minimise the importance of [working with Māori in New Zealand.]”

Madam Chair, and also to the Minister: has she considered the fact—we put a weight of importance on ensuring that we included the provisions in the Child Poverty Reduction Bill so there’s an exemplar of including the importance of tangata whenua for Māori under the Treaty, a provision that allows for the importance of their roles of responsibility. In this case, with this submission from the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association, has the Minister considered that also as a potential amendment to the bill?

My apologies. The time has come for me to report this bill, and I do apologise to Denise Lee. I forgot I had to go back at five to 10. I thought there would be time.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill and no progress on the Crimes Amendment Bill and the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.