Smith Nick: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4866] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I have some important questions about the detail in this bill that I want the Minister to respond to and the first of those is a very important issue of principle. The previous issues of occupational regulation and the two most important reforms have been the accountants and engineers. What the Government has done through legislation such as this is provide legislative protection for a term in the case of a chartered accountant or a chartered professional engineer and then trusted the profession to develop a set of codes and regulations that can come through a proper process. 
In this bill we have a very different approach to occupational regulation where there is a statutory body completely appointed by the Minster making all the rules and regulations around the profession. I would like to know from the Minister in the Chair the Hon Steve Maharey why we have taken and why this Parliament is taking such a different approach to occupational regulation. What is it about social workers that means we cannot trust them? Why is it not possible given all the work of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers for us to provide some statutory protections and an acknowledgment of that organisation and let them run the system? It was good enough for accountants and engineers; why is it not good enough for social workers? That organisation has gone to a huge amount of expense to develop the standard. That work is all washed away. It has done a huge amount of work for many social workers to be registered. Hundreds of them all over New Zealand have been put in place because the statutory framework has not been there. It just seems common sense to apply those other models. They are working well and we should do that in this case. 
My first question to the Minister asks why we do not trust social workers as a profession. Surely when we talk about professional regulation the very notion of a profession is that it is able to manage its own affairs. It is not some Big Brother State organisation imposing something on a group of individuals but the profession having an active say in the development of its own code of ethics and its own disciplining of its members. That in my view is the definition of a profession. The Government is not allowing the social work profession to develop in that way and that is a mistake. 
The second key question I have for the Minister—and I will take point after point as I am entitled to in this debate—is about the very draconian provision in clause 10 in schedule 1. That states: “The Minister may remove a member from office at any time without compensation”. That means any member of the board. Why is that necessary? If it were a State-owned enterprise I could understand it; and we do have such provisions with regard to State-owned enterprises. When the Government of the day is managing a key State asset it must finally have responsibility. But when it comes to an organisation that is setting the standards for a profession why do we need that extent of State control? I do not know of any other professional board that has that: not one and my understanding is that we have statutes for over 28. 
I asked the library to find out for me whether there is any other professional board where the Minister has the power at any time to sack a member of that board without giving any reason and the answer is that there is not. So why is it that this Minister wants us to give him the power to fire any member of the Social Workers Registration Board? Does any member opposite know why that is the case? Why is it necessary to have that power in this legislation but not for plumbers electricians doctors nurses teachers or for any other body? 
I will tell members why I think it is. I think it is because the Minister has become so defensive about children and young persons that he is afraid of a strong professional body like the Social Workers Registration Board—and it is true Parliament does have a testy relationship with professional bodies representing teachers or doctors or engineers as does the Government and sometimes those bodies do send a missile across the Government’s way. That is part of democracy. That is part of their being a profession. My fear is that the Minister of Social Services and Employment will use clause 10 of schedule 1—which gives him the power to fire any member of the board including the chair or the deputy chair—to give them the Kit Richards treatment if they dare say anything. 
John Carter 
: He won’t use it surely? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister seems to be indicating he will not use it. So why does he need it? Can he provide some explanation in respect of that important clause?