Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to clause 4. This is the debate on clause 4, “Section 2 amended (Commencement)”. The question is that clause 4 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, as it stands, we’ve got a four-year extension of the ability for people to enter through the experience pathway. As it has been noted through submissions and the explanatory note, this experience pathway has been critical in bolstering the workforce, particularly for Māori and Pasifika social workers. And, for example, as I’ve mentioned in previous contributions, it also enables people who have experience in navigating systems that they may not be able to get experience from throughout a degree.

So, I guess, I’ll try to get her to address one of the questions I made earlier, which is whether she sought any advice around what else you may need to do to bolster the workforce as that four-year period comes to an end.

And then I’m really keen to get an understanding around the rationale of potential change—well, changes—that she’s wanting to make to reduce that to two years, (a) because that, as the Hon Carmel Sepuloni noted, is not something that professional bodies want, and, additionally, because, as has been canvassed before, without any further action to bolster the ability to take more social workers to those other pathways, we could end up with a situation where the needs of many of our community members are simply not being met. And that is a reality that many people experience. So I’m just really concerned about what seems to me a premature move to close those experience pathways from four to two years and, beyond that, just the rationale in there responding to the professional bodies and what she thinks the impact may be in terms of the ability to enable social workers to be recruited at a rate that serves the needs of our communities and in a way that helps diversify the workforce.

With regard to the amendment to two years, we’re not going to be able to support that. I do want to put on record the correspondence that both the Minister and I have received from the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers regarding this matter. It is important that the committee is aware so that, when we vote on this particular amendment, we do that equipped with the information from the professional body.

Directly from the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers, we’ve heard in the past week, via email—myself and the Minister for Social Development and Employment—that their previous chief executive prepared and presented a submission to the select committee arguing for a two-year extension to the S13 experience pathway to social work, rather than the four years, as agreed by their other sector partners. I quote: “I did try to have our submission removed and adjusted from the select committee process, but the email did not get passed on to the appropriate people. I did not follow it up, which is unfortunate. I have been in touch with Miriama Scott from the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association to affirm our collective position of supporting the extension of four years to 27 February 2028. The Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers supports the sector position that an extension of four years provides time for the Social Workers Registration Board, alongside the Ministry of Social Development and the sector, to consider the longer-term options for entry into social work, which is in crucial need. The Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers supports the training of more social workers, which includes alternative pathways, and for more culturally appropriate training to occur. We are very concerned with the low numbers of Māori and Pasifika social workers in the sector and note that there are many working with whānau, hapū, and iwi and in marae who would benefit from these alternative pathways to acknowledge their mahi and years of experience. We also acknowledge the skills and knowledge they bring to the sector and that many will, in time, engage in social work education programmes.” The letter ends with: “Minister, please accept my humble apologies for any confusion the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers’ submission had caused with this very important kaupapa.”

So this is a last-minute plea from the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers and from the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association to actually stick to the four-year time frame. They have made very clear that an unfortunate mistake was made in their submission that they tried to retract but were unable to, and they wanted to put this on record so that we could, basically, stop the amendment to this legislation. Apart from the amendment, the legislation itself, as it stands, I think, is supported across the House. It is the right and fair thing to do. It is good for social workers in general, but actually crucial for Aotearoa, because we need to give time for people to take up this experience pathway. We do have a shortage of social workers. What we don’t want to do is reduce that time and actually end up in a position where we have less-qualified registered Māori and Pacific social workers. I’m sure everyone in this House would agree that we need more Māori and Pacific social workers as well.

So I would ask the Minister to reconsider that amendment. In fact, I would ask the Minister to withdraw that amendment. I’d like to hear from the Minister her thoughts on the submission that has been made by email this week from the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers. If the Minister is not going to withdraw the amendment, I really want to hear from the Minister why that is the case, given that such a credible and informed submission has been made on this particular point. If the Minister is going to withdraw the amendment, I’d also like to hear from the Minister, because, of course, I’d like to hear her thought process and I want it confirmed that they’re not going to go ahead with the reduction from four years to two years.

I support the idea of withdrawing, and this is why: pathways take time. Pathways of learning take time, particularly so when systemically it prejudices particularly Māori in the process of registration. And why I know this is because I was one of those that attempted the registration process some while ago. Because particularly what we had to deal with over the years are systems, processes, clinical practice which has always alienated Māori. So this process of pathway is critical.

I’d be interested if the Minister could clarify whether she has secured and appreciated the position and advice, particularly from tangata whenua, not only from the official body but from other Māori settings across the motu. It’s an important exercise because rushing this in this way, I’m going to say, would fail Māori yet again.

This particularly piece relates to section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. It relates to the other situation that we were debating this morning; it relates to it closely. Unless this piece—it’s not understood what it means for Māori but also Māori whānau. This exercise also relates to cultural reports and the way in which those were ignored in a previous debate that we were having, because what we are trying to drive in this thinking space is the critical value of Māori pedagogy in all of this work, and it’s misunderstood—in fact, it’s ignored.

So if the Minister’s able to answer in terms of her ability to have secured good, rigorous advice and appreciated it in this exercise, I’d be keen to know that. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will address part of the question that members have asked, starting with Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. Thank you for the kōrero that you’ve actually produced in the House, and I appreciate your experience in the kaupapa that you have actually been working in.

We acknowledge that the experience pathway is currently an important entry point for Māori practitioners and Pacific communities. The Social Workers Registration Board have recently made changes to the experience pathway application process to make this more accessible for Māori and Pacific practitioners, I believe. We anticipate that this will support experienced Māori practitioners to register as social workers through the experience pathway over the next two years.

A shorter time frame could also encourage more of an uptake in social worker qualifications. A two-year delay will also provide an opportunity to consider an alternative entry pathway into social worker registration that is more accessible, including for Māori and Pasifika and other communities who are actually wanting to take part in this profession in this pathway. This includes reviewing recognition for prior learning requirements and considering staircasing education pathways and training. This work could provide long-term options to support more inclusive and accessible entry into social worker registration that are, in fact, enduring.

I seek the committee’s indulgence a little bit, because obviously I’m not an expert in this field—I’m sitting in the chair and I’m trying my very best to actually answer the members. Having said that, the question from member Menéndez March and also the Hon Carmel Sepuloni in terms of what kind of consultation we have undertaken and the reason why this bill is actually before the House is the Government considered the future of the bill, including whether to progress the bill in its current form or to amend it. The consideration has been informed by the feedback from submissions to select committee, which I believe, actually, when there is kōrero in select committee, people have an opportunity to raise their issues with the bill or the support of the bill and advice provided by officials. I considered that a two-year delay would balance the need to support the sector in the short term to address workforce supply issues while maintaining the emphasis on training to a mandatory qualification setting as soon as possible, considering there is actually a shortage of social workers that we are facing in this country.

Point of order, Madam Chair. I’m not sure what our recourse is here, but the defence and the reference to the submissions for the two-year reduction have actually been responded to by the major peak bodies, saying they made a mistake with the submission that they put through, but the Minister in the chair is using evidence that these particular associations have said they wanted withdrawn. So I don’t think that the amendment is well informed, and I’m concerned that we’re moving ahead using information from a submission that this very important professional body have said they want withdrawn.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll just take some advice on that while we have a call. Is this on the same—

Ricardo Menéndez March: It’s a call.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s a call. OK. If you take your call, I’ll just take some advice on the point of order.

Point of order. I seek leave to table the letter that went to the Minister for Social Development and Employment on Tuesday, 13 February, I believe, from Sharyn Roberts, who is on the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers board, outlining their humble apologies for that submission and saying that they wanted it withdrawn.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave is sought for that purpose, is there any objection? There is none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So further to that, I do want to plead to the Minister to take that information that was just given into account because so far the arguments that have been made in terms of the shortening and part of that amendment do not take into account best available information, and part of the coalition agreement is to do policy based on good data and evidence. She’s just been presented with some new evidence which I would then encourage her to actually follow what she has committed to in the coalition agreement and actually then utilise the evidence that’s been presented to her by the member who spoke previous to me, to ensure that she doesn’t continue an amendment that would actually go contrary to that.

I guess, if that was to not be the case, if the Minister was to go ahead with the amendment, I’m curious to know how she then expects to actually meet the demands of the workforce and to adequately diversify the workforce based on just extending the experience pathways by two years. So I’m curious in between her—again, I know the Minister in the chair isn’t the Hon Louise Upston, but I’m curious to know if she has any knowledge of any engagement the Minister has had with the sector to address the potential more pressing issues with closing the experience pathways in two years as opposed to four years as desired by professional bodies in the up to date evidence that we’ve got in the correspondence that has been tabled. So I’m’ curious to see what engagement the Minister’s had in between coming into her role and now to seek assurances that her amendment actually meets the aspirations of professional bodies. And, if she hasn’t had any engagement, I’m curious to then understand whether she’d just going from old evidence rather than the most up to date information that’s available to us.

I’m just concerned that if the Minister isn’t in a position to respond to the questions and the comments that have been made by both of the speakers previously, and you take a closure motion on this particular section, then it will go through and we haven’t actually had the question addressed. So if the Minister is ready to respond to that, otherwise I can take more time and ask more questions—no?

Hon Member: She’s still standing.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Well, I’m still standing because I don’t want to sit down and the debate collapse when I’m not—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, well, we won’t collapse the debate because I haven’t given you an answer yet, so I undertake that we won’t collapse the debate. I’ve just been taking some advice here, so—

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Great. Well, if you’re in a position to respond to that, my contribution will depend on what the answer to that one is, because I think the concerns that I want to raise have been raised by the two previous speakers in asking the question. So I’m interested in how the Minister is going to respond to that for my contribution.

If I could actually provide some context and be helpful, Ministry of Social Development officials have discussed a potential two-year time frame with sector representatives, including Social Service Providers Aotearoa, Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW), and the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association. The sector continues to be broadly supportive of a short-term delay. ANZASW highlighted that they supported a delay in the repeal of the experience pathway but that this should be as short as possible. The ANZASW provided a submission to the Social Services and Community Committee recommending shortening the time frame to two years. However, we understand that, as the member says, the ANZASW have softened their view on the need for a shorter time frame. It is important that the sector continues to take the lead in developing their work towards increasing the pipeline of social workers entering the profession. There is a select committee process, it has actually happened, and we are now trying to deal with the decision-making process that has happened since then. The Government is actually focusing on developing a pathway to deliver more social workers to the industry, as we have a shortage in that sector.

Just to come back to the point of order that was moved by the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, we’re in a situation now where the issue has been brought to the House and the Government has said that they want to continue with the motion, so when we’re ready to put the motion and when the speakers have finished speaking to the motion, the options are that if it’s not acceptable to the members, then the members will vote against it. But that’s the situation we’re in. The Government is putting it forward.

Madam Chair, I actually find that completely unacceptable—the Minister has stood up after having had the evidence tabled, after the association having written to her. It is not a softening of position between the four years and two years. They have made it very clear and they have apologised—there was a mistake made in the submission. All of the evidence that the Government is using to actually justify the reduction in time for the extended pathway is now null and void because the most important professional body has come forward and written to the Minister and said to her that there was a mistake in that submission. They tried to withdraw it. They do not want it reduced to two years—they want it at four years. They’ve given every reason why it needs to stay at four years, and the Minister has ignored that.

Now, I feel for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Melissa Lee, because she is not the Minister who is leading the actual bill, but the Minister who is leading the actual bill should be reading her correspondence and should be nimble enough to change her position. This is a very important letter that went to the Minister this week. So I am concerned that the Minister in the chair is going to move ahead regardless and that the Minister in the chair continues to stand up and spell out the dissent for why they’re doing it, which is now null and void because the association has said that they do not want that to happen. So what I don’t want to hear from the Minister in the chair is actually that the association, the professional body, supports this, because they are clear that they do not support this.

One thing I do want to add is that any Government, any Minister, has to be nimble and has to be ready to change position when they are presented with quality evidence that suggests that their way forward is not the right way forward. So it’s disappointing to see that this Minister and this Government, when presented with solid evidence and information just this week, are not willing to change their position on this. I want to hear from the Minister as to why that is the case.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, again, pleading that the Minister in the chair engages with the recent events, but, as we stand in the debate that we’re having, really keen—the Minister hasn’t addressed around what actions or what advice she’s sought about the impact of changing from four to two years, and I really would like the Minister to engage with the consequences of her amendment. If there is to be an amendment that will change that time line from four to two years, what advice has she sought on the impacts in the intake of Māori and Pasifika social workers, any advice that she’s sought around the intake of social workers from low socio-economic backgrounds, and what conversations has she had, in between coming into the role and tabling the amendment, with those professional bodies? And other than professional bodies, I’m also interested in what conversations has she had with tertiary education institutions around their ability to adequately train the necessary amount of social workers to meet demand.

Why I’m asking those questions is because I think tabling this amendment based on a small amount of submissions that she’s received has deep consequences. So I wonder whether there was any other work that was done in preparation of this amendment that would outline the consequences of changing the time line from four to two years and whether she’s then been proceeding with what else she will need to do to address any negative impacts that prematurely closing the experience pathway will have.

I want to reflect on why I’m asking for the engagement of tertiary education institutions, because, being a field educator for social workers, I’ve done guest lectures for social work classes, and it’s really clear that a lot of the people who are able to get registered through the experience pathways are some of the people who are really struggling to enter the professional sector through the traditional pathways. I’ve seen students who are having to work multiple jobs to make ends meet while expected to complete their unpaid labour that they do as part of the degree. So if the Minister is going to close the experience pathways in two years, per the amendment that we have in front of us, that will have consequences for those people who otherwise would’ve been able to enter through the experience pathways as the Minister works her way to ensure our tertiary education sector is up to speed and being able to support those students. Otherwise, if the Minister didn’t do any of that engagement, then this amendment’s kind of based on little evidence. And I take the Minister’s point that this is not an area that she has expertise on, but I really, really would like her to try to at least get some advice around the level of engagement while she’s in the chair to give us assurances, then, that this amendment that we seem to be moving towards won’t have any negative consequences in the workforce and diversity of the workforce that we will have.

Subsequent to that, I’m also interested in, for example, any engagement she’s had with other agencies such as the Ministry of Social Development’s front-line staff in relationship to, for example, the impact that having social workers who come from those experience pathways accompanying people who need support from places like Work and Income has. Some of those people from experience pathways have lived experience of being on a benefit and they’re able to provide support that, for example, others may not. So I’m keen to get a sense of, for example, the feedback that she’s sought from front-line services and how those social workers from the experience pathways affect their ability to engage with the community. If she hasn’t had that engagement, how can she then be confident that this tabled amendment won’t have perverse consequences?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have some expertise—and I’m glad to share it with you this afternoon—and some demonstrated experience in this particular instance. Just as an example—I won’t say the exact number of years, but it was certainly more than four years that it took me to do my social work degree, finally, because I had to work. And there are many, many like me who have gone through and credentialled themselves while working. Four years would be an absolute minimum. I’m happy to share that, and I ask that it be taken on and understood in a careful way, because shortening it—and interestingly, the word “short” comes up a few times: the “shortage of workforce”. To shorten time just to fill a shortage of workforce, this idea is an unsafe way to go—it’s unsafe. I’m talking as a clinician, and I’m talking as an experienced clinician. I’m not talking theoretically; I’m not talking as a politician, I guess; I’m telling you this is the reality of it, and I know, because I was in that space, so I’m sharing this.

To withdraw means that you do have to change your mind, and I think my colleagues on this side of the House are of a similar thinking. When you’re tabled with something that is clearly not a softening—it is assisting the House, it is assisting this discussion, and it cannot be ignored. When you get that kind of professional Māori body helping the House to make a good decision today and in the future, I would certainly encourage that it is taken note of and is considered seriously and that that matters in your final decision. So I want to make those points. I guess I just want to acknowledge all the wāhine Māori and tāne Māori that are working their way to a credential and working inside a system, which is mostly alienating, but still struggle to get there. And the pathway cannot be shortened just to fill a shortage of Māori social workers or any kind of social worker. So these are my thoughts. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So having listened to the Minister’s earlier response, I just want absolute clarification: did the Minister’s office receive the correspondence that we have been discussing this afternoon and that has been tabled in the committee? Did she receive it on the date that it was sent? Did she read it? Did she consider it and, therefore, did she ignore it and decide to proceed with this tabled amendment, which is reducing it from four years to two years? Did all of that happen before we came into the House today?

I’m looking forward to the Minister in the chair answering the question that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime has put forward.

But I have another question: given the advice from the sector that two years is not long enough and that it should remain at four years, and the retraction of the submission that they made to the select committee that suggested otherwise, does the Minister anticipate that we’re likely to be back here in a year and a half, going through this legislation again, putting another extension in place, because the professional bodies have said that we will not have the workforce that we need by that stage, and not all of the people that we’ll need to take up that extended pathway opportunity would have? Therefore, is the Minister expecting that that will be the case? Would that be an acceptable way for the public sector to spend their time or their resourcing that we come back here—having to extend again—in a year and a half because the Minister chooses to ignore the advice of the main professional social work bodies?

I move, That the committee report progress on this bill.

Just a moment. Right, OK, we can’t report progress without the questions. So my advice is that we need to put the questions.

We can stop the debate and report progress.

Well, is there any objection to that course of events to stopping and reporting? Yes, there is an objection.

It’s a motion, Madam Chair. I didn’t seek leave. It’s just like a motion to close the debate. A motion can be put to the committee on the committee’s next step.

Yes, I’ve just been advised that we can vote on that. So there is a motion on the Table to report progress on this piece of legislation, remembering that we still have another committee stage following this one. OK? So I am putting that to the committee—that the committee agree to report progress on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Given that we are continuing with this debate, and, obviously, the Government is confident in progressing this proposed amendment, I ask again my questions to the Minister. Did the Minister receive the correspondence on 13 February? Did her office and herself read that correspondence, give it consideration, and decide to ignore the request to set aside their submission upon which this amendment is actually basing the proposal to reduce it to two years—has that happened before we came into the House today?

Thank you, Madam Chair. It might help the House if I actually sort of answer some of those questions. It is my understanding that the correspondence was actually received by the Minister this week and, as members know and our former Ministers actually know, there is a process that happens once correspondence is received, and the officials, I believe, literally received it not very long ago.

I’d like to address some of the questions that were asked in terms of the extension. The extension to the pathway is a temporary measure while work is actually under way to address long-term issues. The purpose of the two-year extension is to maintain the emphasis on the sector to take steps towards addressing the pipeline of social workers into the industry. The two-year change maintains the balance between short-term support while moving towards maintaining qualifications over time. That is the reason why we’re actually wanting to amend, to make sure that we have a pipeline of social workers coming in, giving the opportunity for those currently who are in the industry going through the experience pathway. As I said right at the beginning, if they in fact are going through the process of qualifying, as long as they registered before the deadline, their registration will continue until they are able to finish their qualification and actually register officially.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, given that answer from the Minister, what I understand the Minister to have said is that her office did receive the correspondence, but it sounds like the Minister has not received any advice on that piece of correspondence—oh, here’s the Minister. Should I wait?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s OK. Just take a break while the Ministers swap over. The Hon Willow-Jean Prime, would you like to start that call again, just in case the Minister hasn’t heard the start of the question.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Sure. We were just discussing that and suggesting that might be a good way forward. Tēnā koe e te Minita; welcome back. We have been discussing this afternoon the tabled amendment to reduce the time from four years to two years, and in earlier contributions from the Hon Carmel Sepuloni and the member from the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, we have been referring to a letter that has come through, we understand, to your office and also CC’d in to the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s, which says that they wanted to remove their submission.

They tried to withdraw their submission, which said they supported a reduction to two years. That was an error, is what the correspondence says, and that they tried to withdraw their submission but were not able to do that, and subsequently wrote to clarify what their actual position is, which is that they do not want it to be reduced to two years; they, in fact, want it to be four years.

So we have been having questions and conversation about that this afternoon. That has been tabled. The last response I got from the Minister was that your office had received that correspondence; however, it does not sound like you had received advice on that prior to this debate recommencing for us to make a decision on that. So we have been seeking clarification that you have received it, considered it, and that you, having given it consideration, still intend to reduce it to two years on the basis that doing that was because that was the submission that you had received from the organisation who is now saying, “Please withdraw it. It was a mistake. That is not our position and we do not want a reduction to two years.” So we’ve been trying to get that clarification in this particular clause 4.

Happy to provide that clarification, and, yes, a letter was received yesterday, I think it was, in relation to this piece of legislation, and it has been considered—a bit challenging, given the content of the letter suggesting that a submission that had been submitted on behalf of their organisation wasn’t valid, but the select committee process has finished, basically, and that submission was considered and included.

So as part of my consideration, I had three pathways available. One was to not proceed with the bill—and the member would understand that if the bill didn’t proceed, then the experience pathway would close this month—or I could proceed as planned, or not submit the change. I’ve made the decision, for a range of other reasons, that the two-year time frame is what the Government will stand with.

We absolutely support the legislation, and it’s always good when we in the House all support something and all political parties are on the same page. We don’t support the amendment, for the reasons outlined in the letter that both the Minister of Social Development and Employment and I received. I do believe it was 13 February—so not yesterday—that the letter went through to your office. It is good that the Minister did see it, because all of us would expect that a letter like that, when a bill is going through, would be treated with urgency, and attention in any Minister’s office would be turned to that. I understand that the submission and the contents of it went through the Social Services and Community Committee, and that informed the Minister’s position, but our expectation, and our question to the Minister, is about her ability to be nimble, given that this very important association, and actually not just the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers but the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association have both expressed fervently that they do not support the reduction from four years to two years. So I’m asking the Minister why, given the strength of the contents of that letter, she is not willing to reconsider and actually retract that amendment.

Secondly, I want to put to the Minister the issue that may arise if she continues with the amendment that she has on the Table at the moment. The issue that I want to raise with her is that given the experts, the professional bodies themselves, are saying they need four years, if we reduce it to two years because of the amendment, then we will be back here in a year or a year and a half, realising what they are saying: that it wasn’t enough time for those who needed to actually access the extended pathway, and is therefore going to use the resource of the public sector—and the fiscal considerations that come with that; the cost of the public sector doing the work again—and the time of this committee, when, actually, we’ve already been told very clearly, “Don’t reduce it to two years, leave it at four years.”

So my second question is: is the Minister comfortable that there is a strong likelihood, given the professional bodies’ advice, that we will be back here in a year or a year and a half, potentially pushing to extend for another two years again?

I’m comfortable with my decision. It is really important that part of the consideration was to ensure that we kept the emphasis on transitioning to a mandatory qualification regime, which has been signalled in legislation since 2017. So I don’t accept that it is not going to be possible within the two years. I do expect that that will apply some pressure. That’s what I believe that we need to do to ensure that we move to that mandatory registration and that we provide that experience pathway for those who are yet to enter into it. I accept that that is not the member’s position, but it is the position of the Government.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: That’s not the association’s position.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It is not the position of the Government. It has been through a select committee process. It’s a process issue that I think is also useful. It is not the practice of this committee to interrupt legislation at this stage, when a submission is made, late in the piece, that is completely contradictory.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: We’re not interrupting legislation; we’re responding to an amendment.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I said, I accept the former Minister doesn’t agree with the position. As I said, there were three options available. One was to not proceed with the legislation at all, which I think would have had concerning impacts, because it is important that we have people who are able to come through the experience pathway.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Nobody is suggesting that today; it’s the amendment—it’s the amendment. What option did you have in terms of that?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yep—so the options were: provide an amendment, which is on the Table; not proceed with the bill.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: No one said not to proceed with the bill.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, no—as the Minister in charge of the bill, that was one of the options available to me. So I accept there is a challenge, and I accept, with the amendment that I have tabled, the two-year time frame is how we get the balance right of ensuring that we get to mandatory registration in a timely manner. So, unless there are new questions on that, I don’t think I can answer it any more fully.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, excuse me—I’ll decide when the questions come.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister said she was presented with three options after receiving that correspondence. We have made it clear in our submissions this afternoon and our contributions this afternoon that we support the bill. We understand what the need for it is. What we are expressing concern about is the tabled amendment.

What options was she presented with after receiving that correspondence from the peak organisation to do with social workers registration in terms of the tabled amendment and the time frame difference between two years and four years? Any options?

I was hoping to bring in, perhaps, a ground-case scenario to really understand and test with the amendment of chopping down to two years. I mentioned in, I think, the first reading the value of lived experience, and I acknowledge the Minister has referred to the 2017 sort of heads-up. I acknowledge that. I want to understand then, though, what is the benefit—what is the benefit? So we’ve talked about a mandate of chopping down two years. I won’t scope that, because we’ve already been there. But then I want to talk about benefit, from the Minister’s position, because in the first reading, I spoke to lived experience and the systemic structures and barriers that can deny whānau the experience that only lived experience can provide. And I used the specific example of men and people who have used violence and that when—and I preceded that by saying that the prevention of violence sector has been so clear to me over the last three or four years of how important safe practice is. So I do want to make that very clear. In fact, they’ve made it clear to me that unsafe practice can cause deep, irreparable harm. So I have that understanding.

At the same time, we have seen that the most enduring and transformational outcomes sometimes only come from those who have shared those very experiences but with the necessary supports around them to be able to safely practise and work with whānau and instead draw on their incredible knowledge and experience that only they possess towards healing.

And I just wonder then, for the Minister, if you could articulate: what is the benefit as the Government? Because what my feedback has been from that very sector is that we haven’t done the systemic work enough to remove those barriers. Yes, 2017 has still not allowed for the systemic barriers to be removed yet, and so what that, from their perspective, will result in is that some whānau will be denied the experience and skill that only the experience pathway would have allowed for. So I’m genuinely wondering if the Minister could be quite clear about what the extra positive outlook is from chopping from four to two years. Thank you.

I agree with the member wholeheartedly in that lived experience is part of the reason that we have an experience pathway, so there’s no disagreement there. We’ve just made a decision that it will be two years, not four. So there are still two years for those who are interested in pursuing that path to do so.

Madam Chair, kia ora. Just to tautoko my colleagues on this side of the committee by saying, this—i roto i te hauora—all of those in our hauora and our social service sector: we must cause no harm, right? This will cause harm—this will cause harm. When you shorten time, particularly for Māori and social workers to gain the credentials but particularly the cultural aspects of it, and shorten it simply to fill a shortage of social workers is simply unsafe. I can demonstrate that because it took me more than four years—and I said earlier before that I wouldn’t say what the number was, but it did take me time, and many like me. Why? It’s because we’re working while we’re getting credentials—we’re working while we get on the way; we are on the job. I think that’s missing in the understanding and the result that we’re getting to in this amendment.

I mean, when the whole registration board idea came about, I was a social worker in the sector—well, we didn’t call ourselves “social workers” because we weren’t allowed to, even though we did; we were more like Whānau Ora workers, we were more like kaitiaki. We carried that responsibility, which, you know, over years that whole concept of working with cultural capability has never been truly understood, right? So part of this work, I hope, is to understand that. My position and, I guess, my insistence is to say that this will cause harm. I know it to be so because of my experience of more than 40 years in the sector, working in social justice, working in the space with whānau who have harm just hoisted upon them, particularly by the system and by legislation that just doesn’t understand our reality. So I want to make those points. It’s a set up. You’re setting up—sorry, this idea sets up our people—I’m trying to manage the “you” word—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you, I appreciate that.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —as you can tell—even though, in my heart, that’s probably what I’m feeling, because this is a space that I’ve worked in too long to ignore what I’m listening to today.

So it is a set up and it will cause harm not only to our practitioners but also to our whānau, because the idea of putting in our social workers when they’re just not ready in that way, it will bring harm—more harm.

So my question is: are you saying, by your decision—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is the Minister saying.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —sorry—the Minister’s decision. What I heard in your discussion was that you are content with your decision, which sounded to me like the Minister will go on record as rejecting the written record by the national body—two of them, in fact, the tangata whenua body—that the Minister will go on record as being satisfied that that’s the position that’ll be taken, and, in fact, rejecting tangata whenua outwardly, and therefore Māori. Thank you, Madam Chair.

OK. So, at this point in time, I’m just going to say that we’ve got to a point where we’ve had a lot of debate on the Minister’s position and we have had two Ministers in the Chamber this afternoon. I think we have clarity on the Minister’s position at the moment. So I’m looking for any other clarification around this very small piece of legislation. So I’m just going to call Willow-Jean Prime.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My earlier questions were about whether she’s received it, whether she’s read it, and whether she’s understood it or sought advice on it—her subsequent decision.

This contribution I’m making now is to support the points that have been made by Te Pāti Māori and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. It is specifically relating to our Māori social workers. Is the Minister rejecting the letter and the plea from the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association to allow four years as opposed to two, which is in the tabled amendment? Is she rejecting their request?

The Minister said in her earlier answers that she had other considerations outside of just what was in the select committee process. What specific considerations has she given for Māori social workers in making this decision to introduce an amendment—two years instead of four years? Because as we understand it from the Māori social workers, from somebody here with professional and lived experience, the two-year time frame will simply be too tight for them to be able to do that.

So, in the Minister’s opinion, what advice has she received that she has taken and considered that supports her decision to reduce it from four years to two years, and my question is specifically about Māori social workers and their pathway to registration.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 12 be agreed to.