Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I move, That the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The bill currently seeks to amend the Social Workers Registration Legislation Act 2019 to delay the repeal of the experience pathway for social worker registration from 28 February 2024 to 28 February 2028. Delaying the repeal of the experience pathway will act as a short-term mechanism to help reduce workforce pressures in the social work sector by continuing to provide an alternative means of entering the profession. We believe this is a common-sense change that the House should support.

The coalition Government recognises that social workers play a critical role in our communities. They provide essential front-line services to vulnerable New Zealanders. Recently, and more so than ever, social workers have been critical in supporting New Zealanders. Social workers have been crucial in the very challenging times that we’ve experienced in recent years, including weather events such as Cyclone Gabrielle and extensive flooding around the country. This Government is committed to supporting earlier interventions, which are more effective for those who are most at risk. Social workers play an important role in helping to achieve this by providing vital support and assistance to a range of New Zealanders.

The Social Workers Registration Act 2003 sets out occupational regulations for social workers. These regulations protect 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.

There are two pathways for registration currently: the qualification pathway and—the alternative—the experience pathway. Registration provides the basis for determining the safety of social workers to practise. 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 registration.

To be eligible for registration, applicants must have a qualification prescribed by the Social Workers Registration Board. However, section 13 of the Social Workers Registration Act of 2003 provides this alternative experience pathway to registration for people who have had extensive practical experience but who do not have the prescribed qualification. Instead of demonstrating their competence by having a prescribed qualification, this experience pathway allows applicants to satisfy the Social Workers Registration Board of their competence based on their significant practical experience. Some of this includes having enough practical experience to compensate for not having a prescribed qualification—usually 10 to 15 years—having demonstrable competence to practise as a social worker, having demonstrable competence in working as a social worker with Māori and various ethnic and cultural groups, and meeting the fit and proper person requirement.

Initially, registration for social workers was voluntary; however, in February 2021, registration became mandatory. The intent of mandatory registration of social workers is to ensure the safety of the public, and this of course remains paramount.

In 2017, Cabinet agreed to repeal the experience pathway with a delayed commencement date. The decision was made to support the professionalism of the social work sector by emphasising and standardising the workforce through academic achievement. This was underpinned by an assumption that there would be sufficient supply to meet future demand for social workers. The need to support the professionalisation of the sector remains paramount. However, the operating environment for social workers has changed since this decision was taken in 2017. More time is now needed to aid the sector to transition to a mandatory qualification setting due to the social worker shortages that we currently face.

This bill will support the social worker sector to respond to these changes by allowing people to continue to register as social workers through the experience pathway on a temporary basis. In particular, social worker workforce shortages have continued to increase. There has also been an increase in the demand for social work services due to the impacts of COVID-19 and the recent weather events that I referenced before, alongside a reduction in supply due to decreasing student enrolment.

The Social Workers Registration Board estimate that there are 700 unfilled social worker vacancies. Delaying the repeal of the experience pathway will act as a short-term mechanism to help reduce workforce pressures in the social work sector by continuing to provide this alternative means of entering the profession. I also expect that the sector will continue to take additional steps to address the current workforce shortages. Delaying the repeal of the experience pathway will also enable the social work sector to maximise the opportunities presented by the recent pay increase for social workers. These increases provide a financial incentive for those who are currently unregistered practitioners to register as social workers through the experience pathway. Increasing the number of practitioners captured by the accountability mechanisms that come with registration will enhance public safety and accountability.

There has also been a growing recognition in recent years of the importance of diversifying the social work sector to better serve the communities most effectively who meet their needs and aspirations. The experience pathway is a key avenue for supporting this. Delaying the repeal of the experience pathway will ensure that this mechanism for entry into the social work sector remains open while longer-term work to consider alternative entry pathways into social work is undertaken.

I wish to put on record my thanks to the Social Services and Community Committee for its work on considering the bill. The committee’s scrutiny reinforced the importance of the safety mechanisms that come with registration for social workers, including those registered through the experience pathway. It is important that all people who interact with social workers can be assured that the service they receive is from a competent, fit, and proper practitioner.

I also want to thank the members of the public and of the social work sector who provided both written and oral submissions on the bill. I want to provide them with my heartfelt thanks for the tremendous time and effort they’ve put in not just to contributing their expertise to this amendment—the work that they do each and every day—but also to the development of the entire registration system for social workers. As a member of that select committee in the previous Parliament, I have seen how committed the profession is to ensuring the best possible outcomes for New Zealanders.

Many of these submissions supported the intent of the bill, including the need to increase the supply of social workers to meet the growing demand. I note that the select committee recommended no changes to the bill. However, I do acknowledge that some submitters had concerns with delaying the repeal of the experience pathway, particularly regarding the potential impact on public trust and confidence in the social work profession if the delay was too long. I recognise these concerns and appreciate the constructive feedback. These concerns have reinforced the need to take a broader look at the social work sector, including entry pathways.

I also note the recommendations that submitters made on the bill—including one from the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers—that the repeal of the experience pathway be delayed by only two years as opposed to four years, which was proposed in the bill. This recommendation will balance the needs of the sector to support the supply of social workers in the short term while also emphasising the need to transition to a mandatory qualification environment as quickly as possible. This recommendation is a key consideration for the next steps of progressing the bill.

I intend to propose an update to the bill and table a change at the committee of the whole House stage to shorten the time frame of the delay of the experience pathway repeal. I consider that this would balance the benefits of extending the experience pathway while maintaining the emphasis of transitioning to a mandatory qualification environment as soon as possible.

I would like to finish by speaking directly to the social work representatives who have contributed to the development of this bill. You provide an invaluable service, and I thank you for the outstanding contribution you make.

I look forward to seeing this bill through the remaining stages of the parliamentary process, and I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed.

It’s always good when there’s a piece of legislation in the House that we actually agree on, and this certainly is one. I have had the privilege of being an Opposition MP working with our social workers association and social workers across the country, and hearing from them, as well as our Māori social workers association and hearing from them.

The background to this particular bill that we are working with and now looking to change is actually back to when we were in Opposition, when I introduced a member’s bill to this House to make registration for social workers mandatory. It wasn’t supported by the Government at the time, but then the Minister went on to introduce legislation and then, interestingly, we took office, and then I was the one that got to shepherd that legislation through. So I was part of pulling this together, and it has been a privilege, but it was the voice of social workers and our amazing iwi and NGO organisations out there that helped to lead to mandatory social worker registration in the first place. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t changes that need to be made along the way, and this, tonight, is a reflection of a change that needs to be made. That is informed by the reality for social workers that are working out there, and also some of the changes that have been made over the course of the last few years.

The bill, as the Minister for Social Development and Employment has said, is a bill that looks to extend the period of time where we allow for the experience pathway to lead to the qualification that is required and registration for those working as social workers or in social worker roles to actually have their registration acknowledged and formally recognised in terms of registration. There’s a number of reasons that have been noted by the Minister that I think are worth reiterating for why we had to extend that period. The bill itself says it is for four additional years. It was interesting this evening to hear from the Minister that she is intending to reduce that period of time—that extension—to two years. That is certainly something that we have not had brought to our attention and that we will need to consider before we get to committee stages. But the gist of it in terms of what we have in front of us for the four-year extension is certainly something that not only did we support and bring to this House but that we continue to support now.

There’s a number of reasons why we need the extension for those that need the experience pathway. I need to acknowledge that our social workers—the ones that are registered—do an amazing job. But there are a number of other people that are working in our social services, in our iwi services, for our Pacific organisations, and for other social service organisations who don’t have a social worker qualification, necessarily—or maybe they do, but they do not have registration—who, potentially, should be granted that through this particular pathway of experience. But there are things that have happened over recent years that lend ourselves to the opportunity to actually extend that period of time for them to be able to access that pathway.

The first is workforce supply of social workers. We have to acknowledge that there has been a decline of people taking up this opportunity to become social workers, going back, I think, to 2015, and so we are not meeting the current demand and trends are expected to continue. We need to recognise that there are people working in these organisations who actually have the skills and have the ability to become registered social workers, but who need a pathway to be able to do that and haven’t been able to do that yet. So that is why we want to support the extension of the pathway.

Also, we’re acknowledging that the pay equity extension creates opportunities for the sector through the experience pathway. In November 2022, the Cabinet of our Government at the time agreed to extend the social worker pay equity settlement across the Government-funded sector. The pay equity extension will apply to non-governmental organisations receiving funding from Government agencies for social work services. The pay equity extension will lift the pay of around 5,000 employees. This is actually likely to create an incentive for the many other people who are doing substantially similar work to social workers to apply for higher-paid social worker roles. They will need to be registered to work in these roles, and this is likely to drive an increase in demand for the experience pathway over the coming years. That settlement was only achieved in 2022, and so that will drive the demand for people seeking that experience pathway.

So it is important to acknowledge that that particular change actually is an impetus for us to extend the experience pathway to becoming a registered social worker. The pay equity extension also helps to correct disparities in access to professional development between Government and NGO employees and to remove some of the cost barriers of maintaining registration.

One of the things was that, actually, some of the opportunities were only provided—particularly with respect to pay—to social workers that were working for Oranga Tamariki as opposed to social workers that were working for iwi organisations and other social organisations, or NGOs, outside of Oranga Tamariki. That correction was the right thing to do, which we did in November 2022, and so it is important to recognise that that will create the impetus for them to actually go for the experience pathway.

There has also been a growing recognition of the value of indigenous practice in social work and the need for an inclusive and culturally representative workforce. There has been an increasing recognition of the value of indigenous te ao Māori practice in social work, which the experience pathway supports.

I think that we can all acknowledge in this House that the reality is that, far too often, many of the whānau who have to access this support or who are accessing the support of organisations that provide the type of social support that we are talking about are actually Māori, and there are many valuable people that have been working in the social sector for many years who potentially don’t have the qualifications, nor are they registered. However, they definitely have the skills to be able to deliver to the whānau and the communities that we’re talking about. So this extension of four years will allow them to continue to practise, and we certainly would not want to see a gap where they are no longer able to—particularly in light of the fact that we already have workforce shortages—whilst being able to pursue that pathway to being able to become registered social workers.

It was good to hear the Minister actually acknowledge the value of our Māori social workers and those that are working in the social sector, what they bring, and the fact that they should be allowed to have a pathway whereby their experience leads to them being able to become registered social workers, and so we support that. I’m not sure how we feel about the reduction from four years to two years, because that is the first time that we’ve heard that, and that is something on which we will need to go out and consult more broadly with those affected directly.

But we do support the bill, and I do want to acknowledge all of our social workers, our social services, our iwi organisations, our Pacific organisations, our ethnic community organisations, and our disability organisations, who often are the front line where these social services and social workers are working, particularly in light of the recent events in our history. Whether it be Cyclone Gabrielle, whether it be the Auckland floods, whether it be the cost of living crisis, or whether it be the COVID pandemic itself, they have been in overdrive in recent years. They have been the front-line people that have stood up to support our vulnerable families at a time when they needed that support more than ever.

But regardless of whether or not we’re facing a pandemic or whether or not we have other weather-related events—and, unfortunately, that is likely in light of what is happening with climate change—they will be needed, and we continue to absolutely respect the work they do. This piece of legislation itself is just a piece of legislation that safeguards us moving forward to ensure that we have the workforce we need for those vulnerable communities. We support it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge that the select committee stage of this bill was in the last term, and I want to pay tribute to the former members of the committee—particularly those who are not joining us in this term—for the mahi that they did in getting us to this stage.

As has been canvassed by previous speakers, the experience pathways have been really, really important in diversifying our workforce and getting a broader range of experiences, as well as indigenous models of practices. That can only be a good thing because it has been acknowledged, again, by many—including in the select committee stage—that we do have a shortage of social workers and that we’re living in an equality crisis and we’re living in a climate crisis, where the type of work that social workers do is desperately needed. There’s also a recognition that there needs to be continuous improvements to the training and education pathways of social workers to ensure that they’re equipped with the tools to meet the diverse range of needs across our communities.

I say this as somebody who, prior to being an MP, used to be a field educator for social workers. It was really clear how people coming into Auckland Action Against Poverty, which was my previous place of work, would be social workers who, for example, didn’t have experience navigating the ins and outs of Work and Income and they didn’t come equipped via those education pathways to actually understand how to support people to get those basic legal entitlements, yet we had people with either lived experience of advocacy or lived experience of living on a benefit and doing all the types of social work - like work, who would have those skills. Those skills and that knowledge should actually be recognised, and I think, if anything, the institutions that we have that help formally train our social workers through those more traditional pathways should be thinking how we can have fit for purpose traditional pathways in those four years that this bill is aiming to propose to continue enabling the experience pathways.

So, with that, I want to pay again an acknowledgment and a tribute to iwi front-line services, NGO services, Pasifika-led services, our migrant community - led services, and disabled people’s services for the work they do in enhancing social work altogether, because having a social worker doesn’t have to be just a one-way street. I think social workers can play a role in embedding competent solidarity, for example, in the people that they walk alongside with. It’s not just about the social workers holding the knowledge of how to navigate institutions for themselves but, rather, imparting it as well to the people that they work with, and I’ve been quite intentional in not using the word “clients”, for example, in the language that I’ve used because I think we also need to move away from that.

So what this bill will do, and what we canvassed in the select committee, were the pros and cons against the four-year extension. I want to acknowledge that there are tensions around the concerns that exist around the quality of the profession, should we continue extending this pathway. But I think those concerns can only be met if the Government of the day is actually resourcing the institutions that help train those social workers, because we cannot put concerns on the table, particularly from the Government side, relating to the quality of social workers that we’re training without acknowledging that without adequately resourcing our tertiary education institutions and by not also, for example, bridging the gap of unpaid labour that many social workers who are training do and acknowledging that the expectations on them to provide unpaid labour have an impact on the types of social workers we then have through those traditional pathways—actually, the experience pathway provides a really, really important bridging tool for those people for whom, because of those socio-economic barriers, the traditional pathways may not be accessible.

That was something I noticed as a field educator: how those coming through the tertiary education institutions actually would have to balance the needs of having to fulfil their placements with their having to potentially work multiple jobs to make ends meet. So if the Government is eager to address current workforce demands, in diversifying the workforce, and in having level incomes for all—but I think one of the places we can start is with the social workers that we’re training—it would be a really, really good and useful place to start to address those concerns, and then not just have these concerns being put in this place without other sources of action.

I am interested in the Minister’s comments around the proposal to modify the four-year extension, and perhaps looking at a different model around that. I think if the deadline is going to be changed once again, our expectations would be—and we also look forward to scrutinising the Minister in the select committee about what other plans she’s got in relationship to supporting those traditional pathways and boosting those. I think we do need to allow that unpacking to happen in the committee of the whole House stage, as this bill—it doesn’t exist in isolation, right? It’s a bill that ultimately is connected to other institutions and to other policy levers that ultimately affect the type of people that go in to do social work.

With that, I’d like to finish by thinking of all the people whose lives were literally saved by social workers. I know the previous speaker mentioned the recent floods, but I think that, for many people, being able to have a social worker in a time of crisis would have been the difference in accessing legal entitlements, such as the civil defence payment. For people facing violence, having a social worker is often the key to navigating really, really complex support services. So I urge all of us to think carefully of how we move forward as this experience pathway will inevitably come to a close, whether it’s by the four years proposed in the bill as it stands or via a reduction of that time, so that our communities have the support they deserve.

I think, finally, it’s worth acknowledging that much of the reason why social workers are in such high demand is because of the systems that we’ve built to create that demand. So if we don’t address poverty-level wages, high rents, and difficult-to-navigate institutions, the demand for social workers will only continue to be needed, and these experience pathways will continue to, unfortunately, be critical, because the systems we created are failing our communities.

Laura Trask: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Are you seeking the call?

Laura Trask: I am indeed. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Laura Trask—just stand and seek the call. That’s the way we do it. Thank you.

OK, great—no worries. Social workers improve our lives and support our communities. The current workforce is wearing the burden of their lack of staff and increasing demand. I know our party did have some concerns initially about this bill, mainly because the programme has been open for some time and the gold standard is now to have a Bachelor of Social Work.

We don’t believe that this pathway is actually the answer to this shortage, mainly because only 3 percent of social worker registrations are actually using this pathway. An extension from two years instead of the four seems more practical to address some of the industry shortages that we do have currently, but we must focus on providing more social workers, and this is something the industry has to address.

I’m actually really happy that I heard from this Government that they will be addressing this. We can’t just have solutions that have no real answers to the problem, and there is this dire shortage that has gone on for far too long. With that, our party supports this bill. Thank you.

I’m really pleased to see the wide support for this piece of legislation. I think it’s a very, very sensible amendment bill. I think there’s a very clear direction of travel, which is to say that we want our social workers to be more highly qualified. As I read it, the qualification that’s being required right across the country is a bachelor-level degree and, of course, it takes a little bit of time to get one of those. However, it’s equally clear that we are short of social workers at the moment, and, if this legislation is not passed, we’re going to have a group of social workers—and I hear it is 3 percent of the social workers who are practising at the moment—who are no longer going to be able to practise as of four weeks from today, so I think there is some incumbency on us to get this job done fast.

If we did not do that, that would mean that there will be a number of people who would no longer be able to work. We’ve heard that many of those may well be in the Māori and Pasifika community. That would be wrong. Secondly, it will break some existing relationships between social workers and their clients, and, of course, it will penalise those staff members.

I think we should also recognise that there are a lot of great people who are doing great work and they just don’t necessarily have qualifications. I must say, I was interested to hear the Minister saying they have 10 to 15 years of experience in some of these some cases, and you say, “Well, 10 to 15 years of experience—how does that stack up against a qualification learning about experience for three years?” Now, we all love university degrees, but is that the right way of travel?

Of course, you’ve got the safeguard there which is the safeguard of the registration board. If the registration board says, “Hey, look, you’ve been doing this for 10 to 15 years. We don’t think you’re safe. We don’t think you’re any good at doing it. No, you’re not going to be registered any more.”, well, so be it. But if after 10 to 15 years they’re doing a great job, why would you do that to them?

So I think it makes complete sense to give them as long as possible time to at least do the retraining. If it’s a three-year process and they’re only just starting on that journey now and you cut them off for two years, how’s that going to work out? We will just lose some people and penalise some people, and I wonder whether we need to do that.

As I said, the safeguard is there. I think this is a very sensible piece of legislation. I’m not going to take any more time over this one, but I’m pleased to see the bipartisan support, and I hope that what we are going to do is we’re going to give those people who are doing a great job for our community—for some of the people who really need that social work support—the time to do whatever qualification they need to do to be able to carry on with the job that they clearly love doing. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This is a split call: Te Pāti Māori and Green.

Hon Marama Davidson: Oh, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ah, the Hon—

Hon Marama Davidson: Marama Davidson.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): —Marama Davidson.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I apologise. I’m catching from the Speaker himself some of his disease—I’ll blame him!

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: We’re here to help, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. On that note, I back myself to stand up and make a contribution to the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill. I haven’t been part of the select committee process and the following of the bill to this point, but I am really pleased to be able to offer my perspectives on the value of social work and on why the Greens are supporting the delay of the repeal, by bringing through some of the community stories and social work through my role as violence prevention Minister, which I was very privileged to have over the past three years.

I understand that what we are, essentially, trying to do here is find an intentional balance between making use of the incredible experience and heart that is across our communities, on many different levels, who want to do the essential work of social work while maintaining a pathway towards professionalising and, most importantly, ensuring that it is safe practice. As a violence prevention Minister, I understood deeply the importance of safe practice and the consequences and ongoing harm when social work practices, or when any practices of working with whānau and people who need support, are not safe and how that can actually add further harm and actually add further negative consequences, not just for any individuals but for wider whānau.

So this is what I understand this bill is trying to get a sense of and balance that intentionally, in this second reading. [Interruption] Am I OK here, Mr Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No, it’s just that the Hon Marama Davidson now has an extra seven minutes because that becomes a 10-minute call—

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Oh, I see.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): —and it’s a good excuse to get your name exactly right, too.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Well done on being opportunistic there—thank you. I was talking about how I’m so glad to see that we are all supporting this. This feels fairly cross-party political pragmatism here, where we can all authentically see the value of this intentional balance, so that we can ensure we are supporting the gifts that are there in our communities right now but who—as many others of you have already outlined—may not have so far yet had the privilege or the benefit of a professional pathway.

So to some stories to illustrate why the Greens are particularly supportive of this legislation. Over the past few years, all of us in our communities have seen firsthand the impact of increasingly detrimental weather due to climate change, not the least those on my East Coast whakapapa side—all up Ngāti Porou, Whānau-ā-Apanui, and Kahungunu, of course—and also up in my Ngāpuhi and Hokianga whakapapa side, who also experienced firsthand some of the most devastating impacts of those crises. When our communities are flooded, when we’ve lost power, when people’s health is ill, and when people have passed from these events, the extra stressors that are likely means that we require help.

Now, violence is never ever OK. Unfortunately, extra stressors can lead to increased violence and increased harm for people, for families, if we haven’t wrapped around the support in those times of crisis. It is social workers across the country, social workers who have the relationships and connections in their community, social workers who are trusted on the doorsteps and in the lounges and the garages of whānau who may not be trusting anyone else, and social workers who have a whakapapa presence and connection. I really want to acknowledge Minister—oh sorry, the former Minister the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, who is no longer a Minister, for highlighting particularly iwi Māori and Pasifika agencies, and my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March, who outlined the need to ensure we have social workers who reflect the communities and the experiences, especially those who most require the support in those challenging times.

I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears firsthand, and heard the stories of families who have been helped by social workers who otherwise may not have acquired the full, necessary professional qualifications at this point in time, and I want to put a word in. I’ve heard us thankfully acknowledge disabled people, Māori, Pasifika, and ethnic groups who absolutely must have social work practices that are safe and relevant and appropriate for their experiences.

So too can I include men who are working with men to ensure that they are living violence-free lives. Many of the men who are doing this work have lived lives using violence. They have, very often, come from prison and have spent time in prison and have absolutely not had the benefits—this stigma—or the opportunity to attain full professional qualifications. But I implore this House to understand that often it is only their experience that can cut through to other men who are using or have used violence and who are needing that lived experience to feel that their voice is relevant, that their experiences are understood, and that it is a non-judgmental but fully accountable pathway to eliminating violence from their lives and from their realities.

The majority of those social workers have not yet been able to acquire social work professional practice. I absolutely implore and commend this House for recognising a balance and delaying the repeal of the former pathways so that we can ensure we are not losing the essence and the treasure that is this very work—the very work that is going to ensure that we can fully eliminate violence in the next generations.

For this reason, I acknowledge my colleagues across the House who have highlighted the common sense of this legislation. I put on to the record the very stories and the experiences that I have had the benefit of seeing and hearing from firsthand, which are that in many situations, men who have used violence have had the most positive experience for healing and restoration when they have been supported to work with other men who have had those same experiences. When they can immediately remove any fear of stigma and judgment, that’s not removing accountability. Accountability is even stronger when you have had men who have used violence, who have then been able to be supported to be healed, and so I really was looking forward to putting that example on the floor. We are proud to support this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

It’s a pleasure to be able to stand in support of a non-contentious piece of legislation, and something that is clearly needed and necessary. I just want to walk through the Social Workers Registration Act of 2003 at the start, which was set up to make sure that social workers—who were dealing with their very vulnerable clientele, the people of the public that they needed to serve—were fit to practise and accountable. The Social Workers Registration Act 2003 was established for that main purpose: for the protection of the public that they needed to serve. The corollary to that was the enhancement of the integrity and professionalism of the social work profession.

Along with the establishment of the Social Workers Registration Act, what was also established was the Social Workers Registration Board, which oversaw the process of registration for social workers. Registration, then, had two pathways: the first was through gaining recognised qualifications, and the second, which was provided by section 13 of the Act, was the opportunity to become registered using significant experience in lieu of recognised qualifications. So there are very many practitioners of social work who are out there spending a big amount of their time and their lives extending the kind of work that they do for so many.

In February 2021, the requirement to be registered became mandatory, so everybody needed to be registered. It is important to point out that the Social Workers Registration Legislation Act 2019 provided for the repeal of section 13 of the Social Workers Registration Act, which allowed for experience in lieu of recognised qualifications as a pathway for registration. So the repeal was to take place this year, on 28 February, and that would have completely removed the opportunity for registration other than recognised qualifications.

It is worthy to note that from 2019, over 4,000 social workers who registered were registered under the recognised qualification pathway, and less than 100 registered under the experience in lieu pathway. I think that there is still work to be done in the space of understanding why that is and why there is a need for that. I can’t imagine why this hasn’t been taken up on a much larger scale, because I personally know so many social workers who are out there doing work and I know that some are still not registered.

So there is some work that needs to be put into understanding what the barriers are for becoming registered, even when there are already recognised qualifications for some who have finished social work qualifications but do not become registered. Then there are those who’ve been working in social work jobs but who also do not become registered.

Now, the extension that this legislation, the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill, makes, which is an extension of four years, is an encouragement. It’s a call for people to take on the path, which is something that I would probably be shouting from the rooftops and getting the word out that people should take advantage of. There is the flip side of a delay of four years, casting the possibility of doubts on the service of social workers. Hence, I do support Minister Upston’s idea to shorten the extension from four years to two. It is still giving people the opportunity to get on and become registered. I absolutely support this bill.

This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption the next sitting day. This House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Have a good evening.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.