Social Workers Registration Amendment Bill

Good morning, everybody. I hope everyone’s had a good night’s sleep. Members, the committee is resumed on the Social Workers Registration Amendment Bill. When we were considering the bill last night, we were debating Part 1. Just to remind everyone, Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 19, “Substantive amendments”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to address a question that was raised last night by the Hon Willie Jackson around consultation with Māori, and just to confirm that the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association was engaged with the amendments in this bill.

Thank you. I’d just like to ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment about a couple of things. The first is one that the Hon Willie Jackson started to talk about last night, which was replacement section 116, “Membership of Tribunal”. I have noticed something in that which I’m not sure is correct, and that is that in subsection (2), it says, “A person referred to in subsection (1)(a) must be a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of not less than 7 years”. Now, I was actually going to ask about the seven years issue, but I’ve also noticed that as part of the Bar, you are a barrister and a solicitor in New Zealand, and this is a barrister or a solicitor—I totally appreciate that in layperson’s talk, you are one or the other. I ended up being exclusively a barrister but I was still registered on the roll of barristers and solicitors of the High Court, because we have a fused Bar. So I do wonder if that is just perhaps an error that needs correcting.

I’d also like to ask about the seven years’ practice, and what kind of field of expertise those barristers and solicitors will be drawn from, because it does seem that this is an area with specific knowledge—and I appreciate there are five other social workers in the mix here, but this is an area where a knowledge of some areas of law will do you no good whatsoever and there will need to be some specific knowledge. Now, it doesn’t mean that that can’t happen under this law, and that that isn’t the role of the selection process. But I would like to know what is that selection process, how will that work, and who will be involved in making those decisions.

I also want to just ask a very separate question about clause 11, section 58 amended, “Revocation of suspension or change to individual scope of practice”. Now, none of us have spoken about that in our speeches, and I can see the point here that you need to be able to not only make the decisions but revoke them. But I would invite the Minister to comment on that section so that it’s highlighted for the public. I have already asked a question about the reasonableness of any further suspension. Just because the person in the Minister’s chair has changed, I thought I’d just repeat that: it’s just about what are the parameters of reasonable and necessary in terms of extending a suspension. I appreciate the need for more flexibility. Was there a decision made that that was something that needed to be very much on a case by case basis, and what kind of checks and balances are there, and therefore something that might be an abuse of that process?

We’ve had, in the past, situations where people have been on suspension for enormous amounts of time. In my experience as an employment lawyer, it changes a lot whether you’re being paid or unpaid. This particular Act has nothing to do with those settings, so, presumably, you could have people who are not being paid at all on a long term of suspension because it was deemed reasonable and necessary. So what is the guidance from the Minister as to how that clause would work? Thank you.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. It’s good to be able to speak on this piece of legislation and look at Part 1 as we’re here on the Social Workers Registration Amendment Bill.

I was looking back and I’m looking at replacement section 3, inserted by clause 4, around amending the purpose. There are a couple of things in there. I was looking at the original Act and could see the purpose, which is quite clear. I think it makes sense to me, but I just want clarification because, I’ll be honest, I’m a simple kind of person. But in replacement section 3, it amends the purpose and will replace “consider complaints about social workers” with “exercise the disciplinary powers over social workers conferred by this Act.”

Now, I’m just trying to, I guess, get clarity on why this is important, because I don’t think it changes it a lot, but I’m just trying to understand because, on the one hand, we’re replacing to “consider complaints about social workers” with “exercising disciplinary powers.” Now, they can mean similar things, but obviously the purpose of those two statements can actually be—because one is “exercising” something and one is “considering” something. So I’m wondering if the Minister for Social Development and Employment can explain why they landed on this change, and what it actually means for our social workers’ registration.

We look at this and, across the Chamber, I am assuming that people know this is important, that this is something that’s reviewed every five years, that we come into the space to look at, and that we need, obviously, to value our social workers but also make sure we get it right, because they are working with our most vulnerable, our young people, our elderly, our sick, those in prisons, those in State care, etc., etc. So in replacement section 3, the amendment here changes it from “considering complaints” to “exercising disciplinary powers.”

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Got that.

GLEN BENNETT: So we’ll make that clear—thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I did have a good sleep, but it wasn’t long enough, was it? Was that in my head or was I saying that out loud?

The second part is—and, again, I don’t know if there’s much difference here—in clause 5, where it says to amend section 6(1)(c)(ii), which is to replace “different” with “various”. So it goes from “different ethnic cultural groups” to “various ethnic cultural groups”. Now, it just seems like semantics to me, but why is that important? What is the difference it makes? So looking up the different words, why would we change it? What would the emphasis be, to be “various cultural groups” rather than “different cultural groups”? I guess, maybe, just for the benefit of the committee. As we progress as a nation, as we progress in terms of being more diverse, more inclusive—and things like I’m glad we’re changing the language; it moves on further when we’re removing some of that binary language. But the fact that we’re changing it from “different ethnic cultural groups” to “various ethnic cultural groups”—why is that important and why does that make a difference? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do just want to remind the committee that this is a bill that was supported unanimously, there were only five submissions, and many of the changes are technical, including the change to the purpose, which the member Glen Bennett just mentioned.

In terms of the previous questions around the tribunal, seven years is standard; that is not changing—or it’s not different from other tribunals. In terms of the selection of the members, it will have to be people who have got the skills and expertise to be able to make rulings in this type of tribunal. So there’s nothing really complicated or unusual here; hence, the fact that there were only five submissions.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment a question, and, as she points out, the Social Workers Registration Amendment Bill is unanimously supported. But can I just ask the Minister, please—and this is in relation to the amendment to section 6(1)(c)(ii) in clause 5, and is following on from my colleague Glen Bennett’s question. The amendment is replacing the word “different” with the word “various”. What is the rationale for changing the word “different” and replacing it with “various”, and how does this impact on the recognition of ethnic diversity in the social work profession?

I ask this, Minister, as the Labour spokesperson for ethnic communities, as well as the chair of our Labour Pacific caucus. Does the Government acknowledge that “different” suggests different identities, whereas “various” may dilute the recognition of specific cultural needs, and how will this wording affect the recognition of Pacific, Māori, and ethnic social workers?

As I’ve said, this is just a number of technical matters. When bills are changed like this, they reflect the language that the Parliamentary Counsel Office recommend, and that’s been used with modern drafting techniques. To the member’s specific question, it actually helps to remove the possible perception of marginalisation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for the Minister for Social Development and Employment, regarding clause 4, Part 1—“Section 3 amended (Purpose)”. Understanding that under section 3(b)(ii) of the principal Act, it previously only considered complaints about social workers but now has expanded to include “exercise the disciplinary powers”. I want to check, under the principal Act, Part 5, in terms of appeals and the right to appeal, would that encompass the broadening of the power that this section will have? As in, for a person to have the right of appeal, can they also, in that case, appeal the additional exercise of the disciplinary powers, on top of the complaints? So, for clarity, in this bill it is clause 4—section 3 amended—but if you look at the principal Act, which is the Social Workers Registration Act, it is section 3(b)(ii). But also, in that principal Act, under Part 5, there is a section on appeals. So I wanted to check with the Minister whether that right to appeal expands to the additional powers.

For the member’s information, that particular section has already been addressed.

As Part 1? The question on appeal has already been addressed?

It was raised, yes, by a previous questioner.

I move, That debate on this question now close.