Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill

We come first to the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill. Members, we come first to clause 1. This is the debate on clause 1 Title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

It might actually help if I set a little bit of background on this particular bill. The Social Workers Registration Act 2003 sets out occupational regulations for social workers. These regulations ensure the safety of members of the public by ensuring that social workers are competent to practise and are held accountable, while also enhancing the professionalism of social workers.

Since 2021, the Social Workers Registration Act 2003—the Act—has required all social workers to register with the Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB). To be eligible for registration, applicants must have a prescribed qualification recognised by the SWRB. Section 13 of the Act provides an additional registration pathway for people with extensive practical experience but without the prescribed qualification—the experience pathway. For the experience pathway, instead of demonstrating their competence by having a prescribed qualification, applicants must satisfy the SWRB of their competence based on their significant practical experience. Both pathways require an initial competency assessment and a fit and proper person test once registered. Further assurance is provided by the accountability and oversight mechanisms that come with the registration.

This particular bill, basically, is a very small amendment to actually extend—there was an extension made where the registration could take people four years to register, but, in hindsight, with the social worker sector facing a significant workforce shortage, with an estimated 700 unfilled vacancies and growing demand for social work services due to the impact of COVID-19 and Cyclone Gabrielle, and also the number of students enrolled in social worker qualifications declining, it has been reviewed and looked at to shorten the period.

Having said that, as long as the people who are registering do, in fact, register before the deadline, their registration process will continue to happen. I look forward to the contributions of the members in the Chamber.

I’m really glad that the Minister mentioned the amendment that they’re putting up. Can I make it very clear that we are supporting the bill overall; in fact, it started whilst we were still in Government and it is a good piece of legislation and it is the right thing to do.

Just as context for those that are new to the House—because it is important to know, when we’re considering a bill like this—previously it was not mandatory for social workers to be registered. We had many people across the country who were calling themselves social workers. The expectation from the public was that these were professionals and they were qualified, but that wasn’t always the case. The expectation from the social work workforce is that we would take them seriously and professionalise that workforce by making registration mandatory. We did that, and now there is an amendment here. What this bill does—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I—just for the purposes of the exercise, there are parts that we’re taking, so we’re actually talking to clause 1, which is the—

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’m going to speak to what the Minister spoke about, which is the amendment that she’s put forward.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, but if we’re not taking it as one debate, it would be really good if we could talk about the title in this part, and then we can get to the part that actually starts talking about the amendment. So I know it has been broadened out a little bit, and given that you’re the first speaker, let’s just sort of give a little bit of leeway here, seeing as you’ve started. But, for the committee, it would be really good if we’re taking this in clauses—let’s go clause by clause.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: OK. Point of order, Madam Chair. Just to clarify: because the Minister went broad, I’ve come in broad, and you’re OK with me to continue?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ve opened that up for you to finish your speech. Yes, thank you.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: OK, great, thank you. So what this bill, effectively, does is provides that pathway for people to become registered through their experience—well, we already were doing that, but to extend that pathway. The issue is, as the Minister has said, that we do not have enough social workers, that there are a number of people who haven’t quite finished the qualifications or become registered yet.

The issue that will come up over the course of this debate is the Government’s decision to put up an amendment to reduce the time frame for them to be able to access that experience pathway from four years to two years. Why I’m concerned about this—and it will be discussed, I’m sure, in more detail across the course of this committee stage—is that the social workers association themselves have written not only to me this week but also to the Minister for social development to make it clear to her that, actually, their intention is not for it to be reduced to two years.

Now, there has been confusion and we need to put on record how that confusion came about, which led to the Government putting up this amendment that I’m hoping that they will actually retract, given the advice we’re getting from the professional workforce that is out there. The association did make it clear to the Minister and myself that there was a submission made to select committee by their former chief executive, who had asked that the period of time for getting that access to the experience pathway be reduced from four years to two years, but they themselves have said that they didn’t actually all agree as an association; nor did the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association agree with that. In fact, they tried to pull their submission so that it would remain a four-year extension and not be reduced to a two-year extension; however, it wasn’t withdrawn and that submission went through select committee. So they have written to the Minister to make the point that they want it to remain as it was, at four years. They do not want this amendment to go ahead.

I want to make the point because I was hoping that the Minister for social development would have received that correspondence and rethought putting this amendment up in the debate. Either she didn’t receive it, it hasn’t been brought to her attention, or she is choosing to ignore the professional social work workforce associations here with regards to their recommendation. It is important that we put this on record so that we’re clear why we, on this side of the House, will not be supporting the amendment, even though we are completely in support of the legislation and we very genuinely ask the Government to reconsider that amendment—in fact, just withdraw the amendment, and then the legislation, as far as we are concerned, is absolutely fine.

I also just need to make the point before I sit down that the two population groups, in terms of the social workers, that would be most affected by reducing that time from four years to two years would actually be Māori and Pacific who have been working within their community and iwi organisations, haven’t yet finished their qualifications or their registration, and are going to be denied the four years to actually get up to speed and get that registration that we need them to get. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. I call Ricardo Menéndez March and I just reiterate to the committee, if we could work through the clause that we’re currently on, we’ll allow plenty of time to have the debate on the relevant clauses. So could we stick to the title clause in the beginning, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In relationship to the title—the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill—and, I guess, to the theme of the title, I wanted to ask whether the Minister, in the passage of this bill, and, particularly—I know we’re going to talk about the amendment later, so I don’t want to relitigate the amendment—on the broader issue of social worker registration, whether she has sought any subsequent advice, just more broadly, on the impact that this bill will have and any subsequent actions that she may need to take to ensure that those traditional registration pathways outside of the experience pathway are being able to be scaled up as a result of what this bill is proposing.

This felt like one of the best places to potentially ask this question. So it’s in relation to whether she acknowledges, along with whether it’s a two-year or four-year date, that the broader issue is about whether the Social Workers Registration Legislation Act is able to keep up with the demand that we have for social workers.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just speaking to the title, I’m just really wondering—I’ve always been a bit perplexed as to how titles are landed. As I understand it, it’s usually the Parliamentary Counsel Office that comes up with it. Most amendment bills will give you—because there can be many amendment bills in respect of one piece of legislation. This bill has a very clear and short purpose: that extension of time for the experience pathway. I guess, in terms of the title, it might be better actually to have some descriptor in there to distinguish it from other amendment bills.

Of course, having heard Carmel Sepuloni speak, it may well be that if the Amendment Paper isn’t withdrawn, we’ll need another amendment bill a bit later on to extend it further. So I’m really just asking whether that title shouldn’t be a little more descriptive of the fact that it’s a Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill in respect of the experience pathway. Would that perhaps be a better title for the bill?

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement