Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill. It seems like it is almost a full circle for me because one of the very first things that I did in the portfolio of social services 3 years ago was to realise that for some strange reason social workers did not need to be mandatorily registered. I was one of the 85 percent of the population that automatically assumed that they actually were because of the job and the role that they were doing. Because of that I put a member's bill into the ballot which was for the mandatory registration but specifically for those social workers who actually worked with vulnerable children or with children in general. After that Carmel Sepuloni put Labour's member's bill in but it was along the same lines and obviously we supported it. Unfortunately the Government did not.I think it was highlighted by Jan Logie—which came as a surprise to me as well—that when the Minister for Social Development was speaking on Carmel Sepuloni's member's bill like the member said it was about the timing apparently. But what I found was that there was a white paper on vulnerable children. It quite literally states that it sets out a goal and expectations that Child Youth and Family have a 100 percent registered professional work force by 2015 which was the same year that Carmel Sepuloni's bill was pulled and read. Really what were the excuses for it? I am not sure. I think that after the member's bill was pulled from the ballot there was enough political—I do not know—expediency that was appreciated because of that and then the Government started the process from there. But we are here now on the very final bill reading of this term none the less.I think that it is important to understand firstly what the problem is that this bill is trying to fix or address and find out whether this bill is actually doing that. I know that it might seem like a simple concept that everybody agrees to—that every social worker should be mandatorily registered—but what is the deeper meaning about why we want them to be registered? Unfortunately it looks as though the Government has taken for want of a better term the easy option in just wanting to protect the term social worker" but not the actual effects of who that social worker works with or the role that they take on.I hate to be the guy who goes down into the nuts and bolts and details of the bill but that is where the issue really lies. On the surface of things it is easy to say yes we support this and then go through but we really need to make sure that if we do do it we do it once and we do it right and we need to get those details correct. So in the actual bill itself one of the objectives—and the main one—is to ensure that social workers are competent and fit to practise and that there are appropriate and efficient complaints and disciplinary processes in place. That sounds all good. There is only one sentence which is: "This Bill will amend the Act so that the title social worker is protected." That is where it stops. It does not go into any other intent on what this bill in legislation is supposed to be doing. It is all about the protection of that term "social worker" and it does not go into any more real depth than that. There are some other changes around the complaints processes as well.What I want to do to highlight what the problem is really that this bill is trying to address is actually go to the Social Workers Registration Board's submission that it made to the Social Services Committee in November 2016. It had five draft recommendations about why what for and when. The three main ones that it has identified in its role are to make registration mandatory for social workers—yes that is fine. The second one was "We recommend that the Government permit only registered social workers to use the title 'social worker'."—and that does occur in this legislation. But the most important one is the third one. It said: "We recommend that the Government permit only registered social workers to practise 'social work' as defined in [the] … regulations)." Unfortunately when you go digging down a little bit deeper into the actual bill it does not quite address that recommendation. Those are two very separate things: protecting the "social worker" name—only registered social workers to use the term "social worker"—and the other one which is that only the registered social workers can practise social work. They are two separate and distinct things.Within the legislation and in a specific part of the legislation was new section 6AAB "Definition of practising as a social worker": "A person is practising as a social worker for the purposes of this Act … if that person—(a) is employed or engaged by another person in a position that is described using the words social worker:"—so again using the word "social worker"—"(b) in undertaking any work for gain or reward holds himself or herself out to be a social worker: (c) holds a position in a voluntary capacity or as a member of any body or organisation that is described using the words social worker: (d) holds a position or performs a role described in an enactment using the words social worker:" But then there is another one which says: "(e) undertakes restricted work:"—that is all that it says. So the four provisions before that were all about the term "social worker" and the fifth one is "undertakes restricted work." Of course what does "restricted work" mean? The bill has got a "restricted work" definition and it means "any task or activity that is described in an enactment with words to the effect that it can only be undertaken by a social worker." Not only is that a vague definition of what restricted work is but unfortunately in the other document that I have here which is the regulatory impact statement (RIS) it specifically states the contrary to that and it actually enhances the ambiguity of that statement.In the regulatory impact statement it actually goes into the different recommendations or options that were given and discussed through the select committee. The one that the select committee agreed to and recommended was that: "Government permit only registered social workers to practise social work as defined in a legislative instrument." That social work definition is a thing that is missing. The legislation that I just read out was a totally different option and road and pathway to that which the Minister has gone down and there are some big problems with it. It states in the option in the recommendation of the RIS which the Minister did take on that "This change would move to title protection of the wider title "social worker"—which it does. "However any non-registered person may carry out those activities as long as they do not use the protected titles." So what it is saying is that any person can carry out the same activities that the so-called registered social worker is doing as long as they do not use the term "social worker". So that is what happens when the Government is taking the easy option and is concentrating solely on protecting the title because it leaves a pathway open for individuals to do that same work or for organisations to create the same role but not call it a social work role.Now what is the problem that we are trying to solve here? Is it just the protection of that term "social worker" or is it protecting the people who they are working with—is it the role that they are working with? It also goes on to say—in that same option that the Minister has agreed to go down that current social workers may choose to respond—"Current social workers who were still unwilling to register could lose their livelihoods. They may choose to respond by changing their title e.g. to community worker and likewise employers may choose to change job titles to retain non-registered staff." So we are targeting the name; we are not targeting the actual role and occupation that they are filling and it is entirely contrary to the intent with which every member in this House—and I know that Carmel Sepuloni's member's bill and mine as well was to protect vulnerable people and to protect those clients. On this legislation we have got very large concerns and a number of them about whether this legislation will actually achieve that and how we can go through the select committee process. Hopefully the Minister can answer those questions and waylay those concerns but we will be very interested to hear all of the submissions on this throughout the next stage. Thank you."