Newman Muriel: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Newman Muriel: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4874] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Whip—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I have to say how disappointed I am in the Minister of Social Services and Employment. It is a huge disappointment because we know that this is a Minister who is not shy about talking. I would like to try to understand a little bit better why he is not prepared to take a call. I remind him that this bill is being passed through all its stages under urgency. Here we are late at night on a Thursday going through the motions with a Minister who will not talk to the Committee about the issues the Opposition has raised. I believe they are extremely serious issues and if the Minister does not want to treat this bill with contempt he will get to his feet and he will answer some of the points that have been raised. 
I want him to tell me how we can be guaranteed that political interference is not behind this bill. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Don’t talk to us about contempt. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Maybe Mr Benson-Pope would like to stand up and put on record how the Opposition can be assured that this bill is not a mechanism to bring political interference into another area of professional expertise in New Zealand. There are no guarantees in this bill that the Minister will be kept under check by anybody. The point is that if the Minister puts in place a bunch of his mates they will be driving the profession. They will be able to change the criteria without any checks and balances. Where are the safeguards for all those people who rely on social workers to help them with their problems? There are none. 
I tell the Minister that I believe that this is an extremely serious issue. I am not aware that anybody in the profession understood that the criteria could be changed in the way that they can be. There are no criteria written down in the bill so it is up to the judgment if one likes of the profession. In my mind changing the criterion from a qualification to a number of years of experience with no qualification is a huge change—the two are poles apart. 
That was the official advice the Minister received. It was pointed out to him. He made no decision to try to put it right in the bill—to include it in a form that would assure members of the Opposition or members of the public that it was out of the politicians’ hands. I would like the Minister to take a call to tell us that my interpretation is not the correct one and that the safeguards are actually written in the bill. 
The other point I would like to make is that it costs $14000 per social worker to get a qualification. Those workers may not even need to get a qualification according to the advice the Minister has received. Are we to put enormous compliance costs on social workers and on the organisations they work for when that might not be needed? If he does want them to train for and obtain a qualification can he tell the Committee what he has done as Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) to ensure that enough providers of services will be out there to help those social workers who would like to gain qualifications to get them? I understand that at the moment the need out there and the actual number of people who can provide help are absolutely out of kilter. There are nowhere near enough trainers in social work to help those people get qualifications if they so desire. 
It is very important that the Minister sets the record straight and that he tells us exactly what the criteria are to be from his perspective because he will be the one who is guiding this. He will be the one who sets the basic criteria for how people gain their registration. We have seen two very different scenarios put forward in the advice that has been given to the Minister and it is only fair that New Zealanders and social workers who have a very very keen interest in this matter are informed by him. The Committee stage of a bill provides the Minister with an opportunity to address the nuts and bolts issues that are raised. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order paper 73 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to omit new subclause (2)(b) set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 73 and substitute the following paragraph: 
(b)must be such that when it is added to the duration of any previous period or periods of limited registration of the person the total is no more than 3 years.