Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to recap the situation. Sorry, could I just have a clarification about the time I’ve got available, please?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes, one minute and ten seconds, we had. We can amend that. We have the technology. There we go—away you go.

Thank you, Madam Chair. When I last was speaking on this Part in the committee of the whole House stage, it was just in regards to the issue—to the Minister—which was talking about the definition of “social work practice”. I just want to go over, again, the parts of the speech in which I was referring to the submission by the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services. This was, in particular, on page four of their submission, which talked about the definition, and in particular around “Social work is a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes social change and development,”. Then as I go down, it actually referred to “Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities and indigenous knowledge,”. My question to the Minister is had she considered also, too, the concerns that were raised in regards to the definition of social work practice in particular to kaupapa Māori?

I specifically want to raise the point that came through in the submissions from the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association, where, in particular, in the first page of the submission—[Time expired]

I thought, following the last committee stage session in the House, that I’d go away and then look at any questions that were asked that I didn’t get the opportunity to respond to and take this time to actually respond to those questions that were asked in our last session. So I thought I’d just do that now. There are lots of areas that I think we’ve traversed enough, but let me respond to the questions that were asked that I didn’t get an opportunity to respond to last time. Simon O’Connor asked a question saying he understood that “registered social worker” has been repealed, but the definition of “particular condition” raises a question for him, and he wanted to know why that had been removed and whether that was absolutely necessary. Just in response to that, the introduction of scopes of practice resulted in many consequential amendments in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187. There are numerous but minor amendments that shift the provision for putting conditions on a social worker’s annual practising certificate to instead be on an individual social worker’s scope of practice. In the SOP drafting, it was considered that the distinction of “particular conditions” was no longer needed because the power to put conditions on an individual social worker’s scope of practice in the SOP was sufficient.

Another question asked by Simon O’Connor was the question about a qualification-setting ability or mandate or delegation of the board, or whether or not there was going to be a reliance on that, as with just about other qualifications through the NZQA. Section 5B in new Part 1A requires the board to prescribe which qualifications are needed so that a social worker, having obtained the qualifications, will be considered competent to practise as a social worker within a scope of practice and is therefore entitled to register. The board has a close and collaborative working relationship with NZQA, which has been demonstrated in the board’s current function in section 99(1)(f) to recognise educational qualifications for the purposes of the Act. The board is able to draw on advice from and/or involve the NZQA in carrying its new function in section 5B. So hopefully that responds to that question.

Another question asked by Simon O’Connor in relation to the social work profession—“1 or more social work services performed by the social work profession”. He was asking, basically, about the scopes of practice again, and wanted to know from me whether I as Minister would be—sorry, it’s just quite hard for me to understand what the question was that was put forward. OK, let’s just go. Basically, the question is about the definition of scope of practice in clause 5A(3) of this SOP, and we’re quite comfortable with the language in the definition of scope of practice. It simply refers to social work services that people in the social work profession are permitted to perform. The words “perform” and “services”, which he raised concerns about, are commonly used alongside each other in legislation, so there’s no anomaly there or anything to be concerned about with regards to the use of language, as it’s a common occurrence that that’s used in legislation.

I was asked by Dan Bidois whether or not I’d spoken to organisations that had a vested interest in scopes of practice. I did list them last week, and I also just wanted to mention that I’ve met with representatives from the social work sector and I’ve had regular meetings with the board, and they’re all supportive of including scopes of practice. The Social Work Alliance is a broad grouping of organisations with quite diverse perspectives and has really provided a useful vehicle for ensuring different views have been present during the development of the SOP and informing the advice of the Ministry of Social Development. In fact, we’re not aware of any organisations opposing the scopes of practice. There are some individuals who have been recently expressing concerns about how they may be used, but I need to state that for some time there will only be a general scope of practice that all social workers will need to be registered within. This will be broad by its general nature.

Can I refer to another question that came up last time by Maureen Pugh. She said, “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?” She asked, you know, perhaps maybe for senior mental health, maybe youth, maybe disability, and the question was, basically, the extent of what the scopes might extend to. The SOP follows modern legislative practice in providing a framework for the Social Workers Registration Board to develop scopes of practice. Scopes of practice will themselves not be part of this Act. So that gives us the flexibility that we talked about last week for scopes of practice to be changed and updated as time goes by without needing them to be returned to Parliament. So, again, the legislation provides for there to be scopes of practice but doesn’t outline specifically what they are, as we didn’t think it needed to be in the legislation because we did need that flexibility.

We had a question about the word “may” being a noncommittal word. I think that was the member Maureen Pugh again, and that word being used in section 5A(2) of new Part 1A. Can I just say that we’re quite comfortable—we’ve gone back and checked. In terms of the context in which that word is used, it’s usual practice; there’s nothing that sets it apart from how it might be used in any other piece of legislation. There are a few other questions that I feel like we traversed well enough last week, so I’ll leave it there for now and we will continue with this debate.

Before I call the Hon Louise Upston, I just have to let you know that you’re on your last call for this Part.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for responding to some of the questions that were raised in the previous session of the committee of the whole House. We do have a large number of other questions. Some of them have just arisen in the last couple of days as we’ve had feedback from people who were watching or listening to the committee of the whole House and raising concerns with us about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187 in particular.

So I did want to just bring the attention and the focus of this part of my contribution around Part 1, clause 5A, where section 4 was amended, particularly starting off with the repeal of the definition of the recognised New Zealand qualification. Looking at the primary legislation, that “means a New Zealand education qualification for the time being recognised by the Board as appropriate for social workers working in New Zealand”. Minister, we’re keen to know exactly what is the rationale, what is the reasoning, behind the removal of the recognition of a New Zealand qualification, and instead the very clear wording in the bill of “prescribed qualifications”—exactly what that means and what the difference is. Speaking to a social work educator today, there was real concern about what that means. Why are the New Zealand qualifications not being recognised? Why are they not being included? Why is it that this “prescribed qualification” is being included?

My colleague has a couple of tabled amendments on this question, and some of them, I know, will look at the impact on tertiary providers, because currently the questions—again, speaking to this education provider, given that they didn’t have the opportunity in a select committee process and this has been jammed through the House as a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—why? Why is there the removal of the definition of a New Zealand qualification, and why is it now being referred to as a “prescribed qualification”? Does that mean that there’s a whole plan of work around a change to the qualifications? Where is that at, in terms of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority? Who is ready to deliver this training? My understanding is that, as a country, we will need to build the social work workforce. That was an issue that was raised by submitters on a number of occasions. So anything that has an impact on the workforce, on the workforce planning—this is a particular one around qualifications—I would like the Minister to provide greater details about what’s intended there.

I want to just refer to the Cabinet paper and ask another question—gosh, I’m running out of time—about whether there’s a wider plan that, as you mention in paragraph 23 of your Cabinet paper, there should be ancillary roles for less formally qualified people. I thought the intention of this legislation was to ensure mandatory registration and, therefore, higher quality, better trained, professionally developed social workers working at our front line. So I want to know what the endgame is. Are the “prescribed qualifications” part of this plan, which we’ve had no visibility of in terms of having lower levels of social workers who can’t be called social workers if they’re to be registered but perhaps have a requirement for this prescribed qualification, which, up until this point, hasn’t really been described to us?

I want to just go through—again, feeding back comments of a person who didn’t have the chance to submit because it hasn’t gone to the select committee—about the impact or questions around the requirement for prescribed qualifications. Does it mean difficulties in changing scopes, or finding work within their scope, for the registered social workers themselves? That will potentially mean they’ll bear the costs of obtaining additional qualifications to achieve the scope of practice for the new role they’ve gone for. And what does that mean for education providers, for employers, and also for the public who the social workers are serving?

So the Opposition does have some serious concerns and want detailed answers around this issue of qualifications. It was, obviously, a conscious decision in the drafting of the SOP, which doesn’t have sufficient clarity. The ramifications, particularly for social workers having to retrain or train again for a new scope of practice, are deeply concerning.

Excellent choice, if I could say so modestly. Can I acknowledge the Minister for Social Development for answering those questions. Actually, it was good to go back through a number of them, and particularly, I think, around the nature of how the board is going to interact with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to prescribe legislation is useful. There are a couple more questions I might return to there. Touching on the nomenclature between “perform” and “provide”, I accept what the Minister is saying, of course, first and foremost. It is the Minister’s prerogative, not mine, but I found that useful.

Fortunately, the Minister has been working, as I have, very systematically. I remain, at this point, on Part 1, clause 5(2), moving on to the last points of definition which haven’t been touched on yet. The last area we were talking about is scope of practice, and Minister—just following the alphabetical order—I have some questions around social work service.

In this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187—and as my colleague Louise Upston, who’s just resumed her chair, noted—we haven’t, as a fresh SOP dropped on us, had a full chance to engage it in the Social Services and Community Committee. But social work service here is defined as “a service provided for the purpose of”—and it begins to list a number of qualities: to assess, support, improve, and, understandably, to protect the well-being of individuals, families, groups, or communities. I suppose, Minister, the question is that clearly those who have drafted this decided to begin using—and I think “begin” is the important word—the full breadth of the English language to try and encapsulate what social service work entails, but I suppose, I posit, or put to you, Minister—and a response would be welcome—is it wide enough?

As I’ve touched on a few times, social work is incredibly broad. In fact, a colleague from the other side of the Chamber, Anahila, spoke about her own work. I would be interested if she takes a call to expand on whether or not simply “assessing, supporting, improving, or protecting” is broad enough. I wonder whether or not words such as “changing”, “understanding”, “encouraging dignity”, or “encouragement” itself would have been not words to replace what’s there but should also be there.

So I suppose fundamentally, Minister, we’re in a situation where a journey, to use some pastoral language, has begun to encapsulate in words what social work service means. But by choosing some words—in this case, like “supporting” and “improving”—but not including words such as “encouraging” or “understanding”, are we becoming a little bit exclusionary? I notice as well that we talk about “individuals, families, groups, or communities”, but I’ve noticed there’s been a bit of a penchant for the new Government to make sure that Te Reo Māori—[Interruption] Yeah, French. It’s been a penchant for applying extra language.

It’s been quite important to this Government to make sure Te Reo Māori is integrated, and I know that in other pieces of legislation, we’ve often referred to whānau, just as we’re referring to families. I know that in this current drafting, young people aren’t mentioned, but often if we do we bring in rangatahi. I feel a bit disingenuous, Minister, because it’s been your Government who tends to blend the languages, but we don’t have that here. So I suppose it’s a twofold question at the moment of why we don’t have further words, such as “dignity”, “encouraging”, “changing”, or “understanding” to describe social work, and why we’re not echoing other legislation which recognises the importance of Te Reo Māori.

The other element that we have, if I could move on from there, is the very definition of a social worker. It’s quite a particular legal question that needs to be addressed. Then, if I get a chance, we’ll move on to clause 5A(1) of SOP 187, about the practice of a social worker. I’m a stickler for these things, but “social worker”, it says, “means a person who’s registered under [the] Act”. Intuitively that makes sense, but there is a question in law of whether we’re talking about a natural person or a legal person. So when this definition talks about a person who’s registered, are we talking about, as I say, a natural person, which is a human being—living, breathing, like myself, although perhaps some on the other side would question whether that could be true—or are we talking a legal person? In other words, could “social worker” actually encapsulate effectively what is a non-human but a legal entity, a legal person? It’s quite usual in a whole lot of legal frameworks, so it’s important that we begin to—[Bell rung]

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call Simon O’Connor, but before I do, I know that the members of the committee will be distressed to know that we’ve got some technical problems with the feed on Parliament TV, so your names may not be showing underneath. So I just need to tell you that. We’re working on rectifying that as soon as we can.

Madam Chair, do you want me to repeat the first question until they fix it?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I would prefer not, but I’ll call you to continue.

Thank you very much. So for those watching at home, Simon O’Connor is my name—the excellent MP, for those who don’t know, including maybe my family.

I was touching on the notion of “social worker”. It would be very helpful for the Minister, and through her officials if that’s possible, to clarify that “person”, by definition in this clause 5, is absolutely and definitively talking about a natural person and not a legal person. I suppose it would be hard if one was to do a thought experiment—to use a bit of German, “gedankenexperiment”, just to keep the languages going—to what a legal person might be. But, arguably, a group, an organisation, providing social work could be determined to be a person in the legal sense. So it would be helpful to have that discussed there.

Look, moving off clause 5, which I’ve now spent 16 minutes on—it’s amazing, actually, because we have a number of other parts to go through as well. Clause 5A of Supplementary Order Paper 187, subclause (1), talks about to “practise as a social worker” meaning to do so within the person’s individual scope of practice. Again, intuitively, when one reads that, it seems fine, until you take a moment to step back, Minister, and go “Well, hold on a moment.” If we’re taught about scopes of practice, it implies that that’s a scope. It’s an earlier point of mine of where we’re talking about individuals or the collective. Scopes of practice, when we think in other pastoral, medical, or legal fraternities, is a scope, a set of definitions, which goes across a wide range of people. If you will, the scope is defined and then applies to an array of individuals. Here we seem to have a rather odd situation—but I’m always happy to be told otherwise—that the scope of practice really is whatever the individual comes up with.

So we may be running into a difficulty right from the start that as we’re about to get into Part 1A, where scopes of practice are to be defined, clause 5A has said, really, the practice as a social worker means to do so within the person’s individual scope of practice. So would someone like myself be able to go back and argue with the board and say, “Well, I really appreciate that you’ve put together a prescription of qualifications and so forth, but it’s really clear under clause 5A(1) that, actually, I, as a social worker”—if I were to be one—“really do so within my person’s individual scope of practice.” So are we running into a little bit of a problem there around who finally gets to decide, and then do we also have a problem, Minister, of, well, again, if it’s a scope of practice as broad as it needs to be, that singular scope of practice with its many heads, many definitions, will get applied to an array of individuals? This seems to me to flip it on its head, that we could have thousands of individual persons—I’m assuming natural persons—practising their individual scope of practice, and, really importantly here too, within a scope of practice, each individual can bring their unique perspective, if you will, on that scope of practice. [Interruption] Well, it’s sort of ipso facto that it is their penchant—Latin now; very good.

So what we’re dealing with here is, fundamentally, if it’s an individual scope of practice, does that not make nonsense—if I had to be a little bit assertive—of actually saying we’re going to prescribe an overall scope of practice? I know it follows on, as it does in clause 5A(3), to begin defining what scope of practice is. But the quirkiness that we have here is that it’s implied in just about all the other clauses—and I won’t go beyond Parts 1 and 1A, but it’s using it in the general sense, a sense that these are the scopes that will be applied singly to an array of individuals, yet we start clause 5A(1) by again saying to “practise as a social worker means to do so within the person’s individual scope of practice”. I suspect some clever wording would be able to remedy this. It’s probably bringing the words “scopes of practice” into the primary and active element of the clause, so “practise as a social worker means to work within one’s scope of practice as an individual”—that begins to change the meaning and takes out what I think are some contradictions.

So, look, on that, I will leave my contributions, and I’m sure it’s a great sadness to the Minister that that’s the end of my calls on this Part.

I’ll just respond to a couple of the points that were raised. One was around minimum qualifications. So can I just state really clearly that eligibility to register continues to require minimum specified qualifications, and scopes won’t change that. However, specialist scopes, if established, may well require additional specialist qualifications. So that’s consideration down the track, but we’re not putting those, again, into the legislation.

Can I also just state that we have had a number of amendments tabled, which is fine—that’s this process—but perhaps before tabling them the Opposition should make sure that they’re worded correctly so that we don’t have to have them withdrawn and corrected versions then tabled in the House. Thank you very much.

My contribution is in two parts. I want to take up the point that was raised by my colleague, the Hon Louise Upston, in regards to what’s being used as the definition of social work practice—and it’s using a global term. In the submissions that were made, that was unanimous. However, there were issues there that I think are worthy of some concern. Also, too, I’d like the Minister to consider this question that I would put to her. It’s in particular regarding the fact that while there’s a global definition that’s been adopted, there also, too, were other submissions. I want to read from this. There’s an acceptance of the global definition; however, currently there is a regional amplification under consultation to incorporate “a commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, promoting tino rangatiratanga for Māori and challenging the continuing impact of colonial oppression on the wellbeing of tangata whenua.” That was one of the submissions that was made. Also, too, there was another submission, and I’ve read from the submission, from the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association.

So while the global definition is widely accepted, what is challenged is in regards to how we ensure that it is current and relevant in regards to that of New Zealand and in regards to working with indigenous Māori in particular. I again read from the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association, who’ve got some real concerns about this. They talked about the fact that what this may do is “minimise the importance of the association between professional title and practice” and “enable the practice to be disassociated from the rigour of professional scrutiny” which enables the work for kaupapa Māori to be effective with family and whānau. So my question to the Minister is in this regard: has she taken this into consideration? She’s talked about the working out of this over the period of time, but I just want to put this on the table. This is a submission that has come through to the select committee, and, again, I want to put that as a question to the Minister.

The second question I’d like to make, I want to preface first of all by stating to the Minister and to the committee that on this side of the Chamber, in Opposition, we do not oppose the principle of a scope of practice. But what we are challenging in the committee stage is around, I suppose, unintended consequences that could come from not challenging and not having an opportunity to be able to work through in a rigorous way the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187 that’s put before the committee. I’d like to say to the Minister that as she also has had conversations, we too on this side have been approached by those in the sector, both those who are registered social workers and those who also, too, are academics that are teaching social work practice as well.

So hence the reason why my amendment, which is to Part 1, new Part 1A, in my name, is to remove new clause 5B in SOP 187. The explanatory note to that in particular is that “This proposed amendment removes the above clause from Supplementary Order Paper 187, as requiring prescribed qualification is unworkable and there are currently few postgraduate qualifications that would fit within the different qualifications as it currently stands within the SOP 187”.

So, Minister, this has actually come from those in the sector who’ve approached us, who’ve talked with us and are actually saying that, at the moment, as it currently stands—and, as we know, with the current challenges and changes that are happening within the tertiary sector—there is a real concern. So while we may pass this law into a mandatory registration regime, what we may find in the future is that the unintended consequence is not being able to have the provision to provide tertiary-qualified training for those that are most in need.

So, again, my amendment—I hope that the Minister will have taken advice and may be able to answer that question, but it’s just taking that into consideration. So that’s what I would like to put forward to the Minister as well.

To the Minister, in this regard, too: when we think about that—and, again, more comments have come through this which are supported by the submissions. It’s just that in regards to the fact that—I hear the Minister, the scope will be broad enough. But when we look at the details and we think about prescribed qualifications in new Part 1A, new clause 5B, and, in particular, where it talks about the different scopes that will be addressing some of the different areas—for instance mental health, other areas around addiction—there are a variety of different complexities and different specialist areas that are there. The unintended consequence—and I’d like to hear from the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, if she’d be able to respond to this—is that what we may find is that those who’ve now got a general both experience and qualification may now not be able to practise in those particular areas.

So my question to the Minister is that one of the other unintended consequences—and, again, this is coming from those in the sector that are talking to us, wanting to raise this. I suppose we’ve become their voice of concern through the committee stage to be able to talk about the unintended consequence of the fact that what may happen—and an example that was given, for instance: if we think about those who are specialising in kaupapa Māori, some of the submissions have talked about social workers who’ve got a particular expertise around Whānau Ora as navigators who still have a social work qualification but have a special, I suppose, designated area of expertise in which they would practise. Would that mean that others in their client base would not be able to practise kaupapa Māori because they don’t have that specialist area?

So a genuine question that’s come from the sector is to be able to ask the question: in trying to be all-encompassing and trying to regulate the sector and trying to look at ways in which we can ensure that the specific areas of prescribed practice and qualification under new section 5B, in new Part 1A—could the unintended consequence be that those who have a qualification as a social work practitioner may not then be able to practise in the particular areas?

Another example that was given to me, for instance: there are those—and this is from the tertiary sector. There are qualifications that have a conjoint practice and qualification—for instance, counselling and also, too, social work practice. There are those that are out there at the moment currently with those qualifications who are practising both as social workers and as counsellors. So, again, the response back to us and to the Minister is to get some clarity as to whether this could be a situation in which we could find the unintended consequence that we may not be able to have those practitioners being able to offer that service and that expertise into the sector as well. So, to the Minister, I’d like a response, again, to be able—not only for us on this side but, again, as I’ve said, this has come from those that are in the community, that are in the sector, and that are currently practising in that way as well.

Again, I want to just round off my comments that in regards to kaupapa Māori, this has again come as of today. Other practitioners have talked about this issue. There is a real concern; there isn’t the recognition there should’ve been. There is an exemplar in which we had the Child Poverty Reduction Bill—we made quite clear that in the primary legislation there was a reference and a recognition under the Tiriti o Waitangi that issues in regards to working with Māori, for kaupapa Māori, was significant to that. So while we adopt this global definition, I think it’s important for us to recognise and to be able to have a way of ensuring—and, as I’ve read from the submission that came from the New Zealand Christian Council of Social Services—

💬 Simon O’Connor: Which council?

—they were the New Zealand Christian Council of Social Services—they actually talked about this, and they talked about the need for us to be able to—there is currently, as they’ve said, a process in place, there are conversations, and there’s a working group that is actually looking into this. I just wondered whether the Minister has considered that and whether there could be a way to ensure the fact that we’ve captured that into this bill as well.

In my last minute and a half that I have, as my colleague and member Simon O’Connor has put—and he’s been using a bit of German; “penchant” and some other words. I suppose the German—

💬 Hon Members: That’s French!

That’s French? I’ll put the German. I don’t know—someone was calling it German, but since it was French, I’ll put a bit of the German. There’s a word that I’d learnt in my theological studies called “heilsgeschichte”. It’s a German word for “already but not yet”.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: What’s German for “sit down”?

Well, maybe, yeah—it’s what you’re doing right now. That’s the reason you’re sitting down and I’m standing up—sorry, Madam Chair, I’m not speaking to you; my apologies. But the word actually means “already but not yet”, and it’s a consideration of what is to come. I would actually like the Minister consider the fact that, again, on this side, we do not oppose the scopes of practice. What we do ask is that there is genuine consideration, as Supplementary Order Paper 187 has come before us, in the two areas—I will just reiterate them: number one, to ensure that the bill, in regards to the definition, is more than just global. It should be relevant to Aotearoa, to New Zealand. It’s including a recognition and a response to the Treaty of Waitangi. Secondly, just in regards to my amendment, which is about challenging the fact of unintended consequences, what we may have is that we may then block the ability for others who’ve got specialist areas to be able to offer through a prescribed approach.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I wish you a happy New Year. It’s my first time to speak in the House this year, so thank you very much, and happy New Year to all members of this House. It’s great to be here.

I’m taking the opportunity to take a call on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill, and I have a couple of amendments which relate to the issue of qualifications for social workers, and I have a number of questions for the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, which relate to the new section which describes “The Board must, by notice in the Gazette, prescribe the qualifications for each scope of practice that the Board describes”—this is in new Part 1A, inserted by new clause 6A. It describes the qualification—well, it doesn’t describe the qualifications, and my amendment here is to propose to delete new section 5A(2) of Supplementary Order Paper 187 to reinstate recognition of New Zealand qualifications for the time being recognised as being appropriate for social workers in New Zealand.

The questions that I have in relation to these clauses here is regarding what qualifications are currently being used by social workers and what qualifications will be required in the future for social workers, because it seems, by reading the bill, that the board must, by notice in the Gazette, describe the social work services that are prescribed, and then the board must prescribe the qualifications, but there seems to be a lack of clarity around what those qualifications will be in the future. So my question is: how will those social workers, who do an excellent job in our community—how will their qualifications be recognised? Are we going to be losing people who have exceptional experience who may not have the prescribed qualifications which will be prescribed by the Minister in the Gazette? What will those qualifications be, and what are the numbers? I’d like the Minister to provide to the House some information in regards to what advice she has received from officials around those qualification issues so that social workers can have that information provided to them.

I think it’s important that we think about the—what seems to be—retrospective nature of this legislation. It says that the board must prescribe the qualifications, but then we aren’t told what those qualifications might be, and we’re also not given assurances as to what will happen to social workers who currently may have qualifications or will have some experience. I think that does raise some questions around the process which the Minister has undertaken in putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper which hasn’t had the opportunity to go to a select committee and to be scrutinised properly by the select committee and even, potentially, to take some submissions from the sector on it. I think, you know, this is something which the Social Services and Community Committee could have well done, in a very short period of time, to look into these issues and also to be able to ask officials directly as to what their opinion on these matters could be. I think it’s important that Parliament is putting legislation forward which does provide as much certainty and as much clarity as possible when it comes to giving the board powers to put things in a Gazette that give powers to another body to be able to make those decisions. That raises further uncertainty around what those decisions might be.

That also means that that’s going to take additional time, and it seems odd that the Minister’s found the time to be able to put together quite a substantial Supplementary Order Paper without having the time to actually go and really put in legislation the parameters of what the board will be deciding and what that might look like.

I think that, again, goes back to the process issue. Again, it goes back to the retrospective nature and to around how we’re going to ensure that the experience that our social workers do have in the community, the amazing work that they’ve done—how is that going to be recognised? It’s not just the qualifications that they’ve received and not just the qualifications they’ve got over their time but also the enormous experience that they’ve got from working in the sector.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just rise to take a relatively short call. It does feel as if quite a few of the concerns that are being raised from the Opposition are being repeated, and it’s a concern I’ve heard from the community—understanding around the qualifications and whether the scopes of practice will be limiting or not. Personally, sitting here and listening, I have had the conversations with the Minister for Social Development. This is an area that I do think deserves scrutiny. I have heard responses from the Minister, though, that don’t seem, to me, to have been acknowledged by the repeated speakers.

The point has been made that the legislation doesn’t introduce these scopes of practice. It’s an enabling piece of legislation to enable the community—the profession—to develop that scope, because they are best placed to do that. Rather than having the Government and legislation directly putting down where those lines are, it really needs to be owned by the profession, and this legislation creates the opportunity for that. The development of this was through the Social Work Alliance, which was the representation of the key range of organisations. We’ve heard some agencies mentioned in terms of the Māori perspective around the Council of Christian Social Services, both of whose representative bodies were participating in the process of developing this Supplementary Order Paper 187 to be able to hand the power over to the profession.

I think it’s also important to remember that the initial call for registration—it’s a very, very long history that’s brought us to this place. The legislation that was brought in by the last Government that introduced the possibility of registration was welcomed, but deep concerns were raised about the lack of scope of practice, and that might have meant that employers could actually just change the job title to be able to pay people less. We wouldn’t have got the professional oversight or the ownership of the profession from the profession itself, and, actually, we’d drive down the wages and conditions of an already, I would argue, significantly underpaid workforce that does an incredibly difficult job.

So another issue that has been raised has been around qualifications, and why it does not say what the prescribed qualifications are. My understanding of this legislation—and I leave it open to the Minister to correct me around this—is that this futureproofs this, and the initial intent and understanding is that the profession will develop a very broad scope of practice that will, basically, provide the parameters of what it is to be a social worker in Aotearoa today in the broader sense, and that over time, this legislation enables the possibility of specialist social work scopes of practice to be developed, and there may not yet be the qualifications in existence that match to that. So if we wanted, as a country, to develop a specific family violence qualification within our tertiary sector, this legislation enables a specialist scope of practice that would have that as the prescribed qualification for that scope of practice. But it doesn’t exist at the moment, so you can’t put it in legislation. So it gives us the flexibility to futureproof it.

But I would also say for people that my understanding and the question that I’ve asked is, again, essentially, that the control remains in the hands of the Social Workers Registration Board—so that is the profession. Questions have been raised about why that’s Government-appointed, and I do think the Greens will be watching that really carefully in terms of ensuring professional ownership. But there is also the level of parliamentary scrutiny over the registration board that there isn’t of other kinds of professional bodies. So that’s another avenue for the profession to come to us and to ask us to ask the questions to provide that scrutiny to ensure that the ownership and the intent are delivered.

Let’s have Dan Bidois, but just before we do that, I can inform members that Parliament TV has resumed its normal transmission.

Oh, I’m very happy to hear that, and a big shout-out to every Northcote voter that is watching tonight. It is a pleasure to continue this discussion on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill. Before I get into what I want to talk about, I do want to refute the notion from Jan Logie, the previous speaker, that there is a lot of overlap and no new content coming up in this debate. I do have a number of new questions that I don’t feel have been addressed. So I think that this is an important debate to have, and had we had this bill in select committee, we would have been able to have these types of debates and in-depth discussions in a much more substantial way.

I do want to thank the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni. She has provided some good answers that have shed light on, for example, why she has set it up so that the Social Workers Registration Board will look after the “scope of practice” definition. I do still disagree with her on why, but I understand her case in that respect.

She’s also provided an answer to my other question around, essentially, who she has consulted in putting together these scopes of practice, but I do want to come back to this notion of the board and the function of the board and, in particular, in relation to the ways in which social workers can go about having input to the scopes of practice and the prescribed qualifications. I do agree with the member from the Green Party who said before that we wanted to make sure it’s in the hands of the sector and that the sector takes ownership of the definitions and the scopes of practice, but I do have some questions to ask the Minister in the chair around the function and the process that social workers will need to make if they want to contribute to these scopes of practice definitions. So question No. 1 that I have for the Minister is certainly around how long a social worker can expect to wait to be able to change certain scopes within their scopes of practice.

I do want to ask the Minister if the board has, in fact, been tasked with extra resources, because in my opinion, if we are now saying that the board is going to take a substantially increased role in defining the scopes of practice and reviewing the qualifications, there is a significant funding and resource requirement around that. So I would like to ask the Minister in the chair what extra resources are being provided to the board to assist with what will no doubt be an influx of applications and assistance on that matter.

Finally, the last question I want to ask in relation to the board is whether the personnel on the board are appropriately equipped to deal with the changes that have been proposed on Supplementary Order Paper 187, because, as we’ve got outlined in the scope in proposed new sections 5A, 5B, and 5C in new clause 6A on the Supplementary Order Paper, there is quite a substantial increase in mandate for the Social Workers Registration Board with respect to defining their scopes of practice and their qualifications. I do have concerns that perhaps this organisation is not set up to look after that.

So those are the questions that I have for the Minister in the chair. Again, I want to reiterate that we are very supportive of this bill, but we would have liked to have had this discussion in a select committee setting, and that’s why we raise them today. I do have a French word that I want to—and it’s not my last name; it is the word “Parlement”. So “parler” in French means to discuss, and “ment” is a denotation of action. So we are here to discuss and to make sure that we get collective action on this bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Unlike the Government of today, we still feel there is value in debating this bill before us, and we still have quite a bit of detail that we would like to explore, so I’m grateful to you for the call.

Thank you to the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, for your answers to some of the questions that were raised in the previous committee stage last week. But there was one in particular that I raised that was not addressed tonight and that relates to proposed new clause 6A in Supplementary Order Paper 187, inserting Part 1A, new section 5C(4)(a), which was the question around the notices that the board will provide to the public around the scopes of practice, and that they would be available on an internet site. My question to the Minister of Social Development was that the words “publicly accessible internet site” be included on that to ensure that anyone can have access to that information and therefore make some representation should they so wish. So that question is still alive and well.

In relation to the scopes of practice, I do have some questions around that, particularly around the process that will be followed should someone wish to challenge the content of the scope of practice and how that will be built into the systems that the board may develop. So for instance, who will they challenge should they not agree with the content of the scopes of practice? Will there be built into the process an appeal so that members in the profession may be able to come back to an entity and provide some feedback or challenge the decision that the board has been making? It would also be helpful to know if there are going to be some parameters built around that so that people are aware of the types of things that they may be able to challenge. We’re simply asking this question so that we can be assured that there is a meaningful process built around some of the scopes of practice and the challenges that may arise.

Some of the other questions that have been raised tonight also apply to this particular question about how these challenges may be considered and who considers it. Will it actually be the board itself, or perhaps the board may choose to set up a subcommittee to deal with any challenges to the scopes, or will that be an independent process? One of the things that may actually be challenged, and we’ve heard that tonight, is around the cultural competence that may be built into the scopes of practice, and because we are devoid of the background to how this Supplementary Order Paper 187 was developed, then we need to be assured, and the public and the profession needs to be assured, that should they feel that there has been some cultural competence shortfalls, these can be addressed within a system of challenge.

There have been some other issues that were raised through the submission process that are applicable to the scopes of practice, and one of those that was raised by several submitters was the role of the current workforce who are considered volunteers. I know in my own area that the role of volunteers in social work, and in other aspects of social work in the broader sense, is totally invaluable. We cannot place a value on it, but the personnel that are undertaking that work are absolute treasures in our community, and we just want to know from the Minister how they transition into these new roles and fit under the scope of practice that will be developed? This was raised by several submitters. Age Concern, for example, raised it as part of their submission and were concerned that this may actually discourage volunteers from becoming involved in the sector, and we certainly don’t want to do that. We want to actually involve them as much as possible.

So they’re just a couple more questions that I have for the Minister. Thank you.

I’m going to attempt to respond to some of the amendments that have been tabled as well as the additional points that have been made in the committee, in no particular order. There were questions raised about the composition of the Social Workers Registration Board and about whether or not they reflect the social work sector and social workers. Can I just say that the actual bill requires that the board will comprise four registered social workers and three others. Currently it’s got six registered social workers plus four others, so there’s a good representation of people that have experience and insights in the sector. I do need to say also that one of the more recent appointments, Shannon Pākura, was also previously the chair of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers, so I think she comes very well informed about what’s required for social workers and reflects their desires for the workforce, so it’s good to have her on board.

Questions were raised about how well the bill responds to Māori. Can I just say that in 2018, in the context of engagement with the Social Work Alliance on the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) considered the suggestion by the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association of incorporating reference to the Treaty of Waitangi in the Social Workers Registration Act. MSD, at the time, concluded that additional references to Māori interests were not needed because the Act already set out clear obligations in relation to Māori interests—in fact, this Act stood out amongst other legislation as having some of the most extensive requirements to recognise Māori. Just as a comparison, the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act doesn’t have the same level of reference to Māori as what this bill does, except for the proposed amendment in relation to cultural competence. Also, there are other Acts that don’t have as much as what this one does, so I do need to state that this is a responsive piece of legislation.

We had the Hon Alfred Ngaro wanting to remove new section 8B in clause 9AB. So I think that is “Contents of authorisation of individual scope of practice”, and we’d say no to that because a social worker will still be able to do the tasks they are qualified and authorised to do, the same as for our health professions that use scopes of practice. Alfred Ngaro has also put an amendment up asking that we remove new section 6AAB, 1(b), in clause 8, which is about “Key requirements for practising as [a] social worker”. Looking at that and considering that, we would say no because it’s actually a necessary part of the scopes of practice model. We need to have that key requirement in there, and it’s consistent with other health professions that use this model.

Simeon Brown has asked that we remove new section 5B(1) in clause 6A of the SOP, and to that we’d say no because the board can still recognise qualifications as well as prescribe qualifications—so that word “prescribe” is just a means of recognising what qualifications a New Zealand social worker will need. It’s different terminology. The same qualifications will be prescribed; it’s just a different procedure.

The Hon Louise Upston asked us to remove section 8, which is about “Applications for registration and authorisation to practise within [a] scope of practice”. We don’t need to do that because, actually, scopes of practice are flexible. We’re not prescribing them, as such, in the legislation. As I said earlier, as Jan Logie has pointed out, this is an enabling piece of legislation but it doesn’t actually prescribe the scopes of practice. We have given licence through this for the Social Workers Registration Board to work with the sector to actually determine what the scope of practice should look like.

We’ve got another one from the Hon Louise Upston asking us to remove section 8G, which is about decisions of the board on changes to scopes of practice, and looking at that, the answer to that is no, because a social worker will be able to carry out the tasks they’re qualified and authorised to do. Actually, I think that was covered off earlier. I apologise if I’m repeating myself.

Someone raised questions about unintended consequences of scopes. The risks suggested would arise only if the scopes were too narrow. This is why the SOP provides a framework and process for scopes—general and/or specialist—to be developed by the board in consultation with the sector. So, again, I’m going to reemphasise the fact that we haven’t made a determination in this SOP for what scopes look like. These are things that need to be developed. So we have no concerns at this stage about the scopes being too narrow. How can we when, actually, we’re only enabling their development and they haven’t been developed as of yet?

So I don’t want to have to repeat myself with regards to traversing areas that we’ve already traversed. I think I’ve responded to most, if not all, of the questions that have been asked, as well as responding to the amendments that have been tabled in the House by the Opposition and giving responses with respect to why we will not be able to support them.

I move, That the question be now put.

I think I’ll take one more. I think I’ll call Denise Lee.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I very much appreciate you allowing me to take that call, Madam Chair. I am unfortunately not on the Social Services and Community Committee, so for someone like me, getting my head around this piece of legislation and understanding how I may contribute tonight, I went and looked back at some of the submissions. I wish to raise two particular topics: one around Pacific social work theory in relation to an issue that a submitter raised, and also the changing nature of the social services workforce and automation—so two really interesting, important points that were raised.

I’m glad that the previous Green Party member affirmed that scrutinising and being careful and being considerate about this legislation—especially when, as I’ve discovered, a 501-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) was tabled at the very, very, very last minute. So for someone like me again, it’s important—how do I get my head around what we’re reading and what we’re debating tonight?

I came across a submission by Kieran O’Donoghue, who’s the associate professor and head of the School of Social Work at Massey University. So what he did was he wanted to look at changing section 6AAB, and we now know that that has been incorporated—changes in some of the philosophy around the Minister Carmel Sepuloni’s SOP. So he was looking at what he believed would be setting boundaries of social work practice—what it is and what it’s not—and having clear boundaries for social workers and specialist fields of practice such as child protection, health social work, mental health social work, and kia mahi ora. So he also then raised, and I have a question for the Minister in terms of—I guess it’s philosophical—whether there’s a practical element in the SOP that she developed around a Pasifika scope of practice derived from Pasifika social work theory. He raises his colleague Dr Tracie Mafileo and her work. Is that something that the Minister is familiar with, and did she meet with either Dr Mafileo or Kieran O’Donoghue? I recall in last week’s debate in this committee stage that the Minister said that she felt that she had a broad consensus, and used those words, and it therefore gave her confidence in the contents of the SOP. So was that work around Pasifika scope of practice part of what she took on board and gave her confidence?

The other part that Kieran O’Donoghue raises is the changing nature of the workforce. I found this really fascinating. He says in his submission “a key field of work in the future [will be the work changing] through automation.” So how does that affect the social worker field, and does this concept form part of the SOP and her decision to bring that forward? I guess it’s talking about the very far-reaching and forward-reaching nature of what it is that we need to look at when we decide on legislation in this House. It’s not just the here and now; it’s what’s coming, and you couldn’t get a more important field than social services and social workers and how we need to take care of some of our most vulnerable.

So in the SOP for the Minister, did she take into account those two issues: Pasifika social work theory and what was raised by this particular professor, and also the changing nature of the workforce through automation—two really important things that he raised? Considering that the Minister confirmed last week that she felt she had a broad consensus, did she actually meet with either Dr Tracie Mafileo or Kieran O’Donoghue and receive advice from them around the work and her SOP? Thank you, Madam Chair, for a chance to submit my particular call, and I look forward to those replies from the Minister. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.