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:4883] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 National is pleased to support a proper regulatory system for social workers but it has four quite important concerns about this bill. I am disappointed to repeat the fact that these issues were raised in the Committee stage and the Minister was unable to respond to any of them. 
The first of those issues was raised very ably by one of the most effective advocates for children in this Chamber Dr Paul Hutchinson. He pointed out that social workers do wield enormous power. They have the capacity literally to make life or death decisions about children. Yet with those sorts of powers we would have expected that that group of statutory social workers at least would need registration under this bill but they do not. We are disappointed about that and it is something that we think the Minister should have responded to. We think that if people are going to have the power to take children away from their parents then there needs to be some regulatory control around them. This bill is disappointing because it does not provide for that. 
 The second key concern National has about this bill is that it treats the profession of social workers like children in the classical way of this Government’s nanny State policies. This bill says that the profession of social work unlike any other profession will be driven by the Government. Is there any other profession in which the entire board is appointed or dis-appointed—sacked—by a Minister of the Crown? Do lawyers for instance which some would accept is a profession have the Attorney-General appoint the Law Society? 
Simon Power 
: Just the bench. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague points out that she appoints the judges but not the Law Society. I ask the lawyers in the House whether they would accept the Law Society being appointed by the Minister of Justice. No they would not. They would be up in arms. They would not accept that. Would my own profession the engineers accept it? Is the top body that decides the standards and the professional regulation of engineers run by a Minister of the Crown? It would be George Hawkins and given what he did with the Building Industry Authority I am damned pleased he does not run it. But the law does not allow that. It says it is run by the engineers. If we come to the accountants or the plumbers or the electricians or the doctors or the nurses—in all of those we trust the profession to elect its own. It is so fundamental to being a profession. It is about a profession setting its standards. It is about a profession disciplining its own members. But what we have here from this Government in this bill is good old nanny State. 
The Government does not trust the profession of social workers and that is a big disappointment because the truth is this: who set up a system of a standard of ethics and a code for social workers? It has already been done. The Aotearoa – New Zealand Association of Social Workers has done that work. Does this legislation attempt to build on the work that social workers have done for themselves? No it does not. This bill says that it has to be left to nanny State. Social workers have to set up a statutory authority to do it. We say that is wrong because we trust professions. 
The third area where this party has difficulty with the bill is the costs. The Minister has created a bureaucratic monster here. I do not know why we have to have 200 clauses of very specific detailed bureaucratic legislation to govern social workers yet when it comes to something like my own profession of engineering and many other professions it could be done in 40 clauses a fifth of the number. This is one of the longest professional bills. I ask Mr Taito Phillip Field: how come we need this sort of bureaucracy? Why can we not leave things and trust the profession? Does his Government not understand the sorts of costs it is going to impose on social workers including my wife when they go to register? 
The other key point is that I asked the Minister during the Committee stage whether he could assure members that the bill for this bureaucratic monster would be paid for by the Crown. No no the bill states that every social worker will have to pay a levy every year not just for registration but also to pay for the disciplinary process. We all know that the social workers working for the Department of Child Youth and Family Services are stressed morale is low and turnover is high. I simply asked the Minister in the chair the Hon Steve Maharey whether he could assure me that registered social workers working for the Department of Child Youth and Family Services were not going to have to pay the $200 or $300 a year fee to comply with this bill. The Minister was absolutely silent. Why was he silent? I will tell members why. It is because he is going to bill them for it. We say that is wrong. [ 
Interruption 
] Will Jill Pettis reassure me that her social workers at the Department of Child Youth and Family Services in Wanganui will not be required to pay the registration fee? Will the Government meet that cost? The silence is deafening. 
I wonder whether the Minister who is sitting in the gallery would just give me a nod that the department will meet the costs for the social workers who work for Child Youth and Family Services. I ask the Minister to please give me a nod. He will not. He will not give that reassurance and that is wrong. We know what happened to the teachers. This sneaky Government made it a requirement for teachers to be registered then it put the fee up 80 percent. In the last month every teacher in New Zealand has got a nice little bill and this legislation will do the same thing. 
The last area about which I wish to express concern is something that I want to challenge the United Future party on. It is in respect of the sickly political correctness in this bill. Muriel Newman made a substantial contribution to this debate. She pointed out that if we are to make social progress in New Zealand then we have some big issues to ask about our families and how we can better make society hold those families together. I have been right through this bill but in all the principles and in all the bureaucratic guff I could not find the word “family”— 
Dianne Yates 
: You had 9 long years. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I challenge the member opposite to tell me where the word “family” appears. If we are going to deal with some of the social issues in New Zealand we have the treaty—we have to be culturally appropriate and have all sorts of political correctness— 
Steve Chadwick 
: Blame the social workers for dysfunctional families—how absurd. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No I do not but I say to the member for Rotorua that if we are to get better social outcomes for this country then we need social workers who understand families. [ 
Interruption 
] It is interesting to note that I have obviously hit a raw nerve because what this bill should say is not all this politically correct nonsense about the treaty Maori and those sorts of issues it should be talking about the things that matter for Maori families for Pacific Island families and for families of every ethnic origin. 
The United Future party went around the country saying that it was going to advocate for families but all we get in this bill is the damn treaty. I say that the family is far more important to this country than the treaty will ever be in terms of support for families. The bill should have addressed that and it does not. 
Dianne Yates 
: Which bill? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This bill about social workers. I do not expect the Labour Party to stand up for the families of New Zealand but I thought United Future might. 
Larry Baldock 
: We are. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Where is it mentioned? It is not mentioned once in the bill. Good social work practice has to be about social workers supporting families and that is where Muriel Newman is with me and that is what makes it different on this side of the House. It is good news that social workers are having a statutory framework. Let us hope it can raise standards. It is a pity about the politically correct nonsense and the Government’s incorrect priorities.