Hutchison Paul: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4870] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I note that in relation to the title of the bill that it has been generally agreed—certainly from this side of the House—that the word “voluntary” should be inserted. I also have another suggestion and it is that we call this bill the “Steve Maharey Let’s Make Social Work Registration Very Complicated Bill”. As my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith pointed out we have something like 109 pages of Maharey complications in order to achieve voluntary registration. This is a tribute to a sociologist’s dream—or a sociologist’s nightmare. 
I now cross to the purpose of the bill which is to protect the safety of members of the public by providing for mechanisms that ensure that social workers are competent at and accountable for their practice. Yet we learn here that there are 10483 social workers that only some of them will register and that a large number of them will not be accountable for their practice. Those who do register only have to do so every 5 years or is it the practising certificate that has to be— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It is every single year. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: As I was saying earlier on in terms of accountability for practice some social workers are involved in very high-risk activities. I am extremely concerned by the recommendations of Judge Mick Brown that by mid-2002 social workers should not be able to exercise statutory powers—except when co-working with registered social workers or members of the police—and that the department must set an agreed percentage of registered staff as a goal that must be realised by mid-2002. I would like the Minister to take a call to tell the Committee what he has achieved or confirm that he has achieved nothing or at least tell the Committee what he intends to do about that recommendation. We need a degree of accountability and there is a huge absence of that from this Minister. It is regarded as one of the important parts of the purpose. 
 I note that there is no definition of a registered social worker but again when we have a bill whose genesis has taken according to the Minister 20 to 25 years it seems absolutely absurd that we do not have a definition of what a social worker is. Apparently there are over 10400 social workers and surely this Minister who has managed to contrive a 109-page bill should be challenged intellectually to try to achieve a basic definition of what a social worker is. We find that a certain percentage of social workers will be registered voluntarily and that is terrific—we support that. We want to achieve high levels of professionalism in this country but when we have a bill about social workers that does not even define what a social worker is there is a huge gap in thinking. I have asked the Minister to take a call to give us his thoughts about what a social worker is. 
I would like to move to the area of registration and practising certificates. I note that a person who has a recognised New Zealand qualification is entitled to be registered if the board is satisfied that his or her competence to practise social work has been found satisfactory and that he or she is a fit and proper person etc. The bill goes on to state in new subparagraph (iv) of clause 13(1)(b): “that … he or she—(A) is competent to practise social work with Maori; and (B) is competent to practise social work with different ethnic and cultural groups in New Zealand.” But where there is a lack of clarity is that there are no ongoing quality assurance requirements. Could the Minister explain?