Muller Todd: Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMuller Todd: Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7242. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to say a few words in respect of the Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill. It is not surprising that along with my colleagues on this side of the House I stand to oppose this bill. Essentially at the core the reason for our objection is summarised by the view that if you are going to do something you do it properly. What we are looking at here is a bill that unfortunately is half-baked in execution. It is good in intent. We have all echoed the intent but when you drill deeper into the specifics in respect of this bill it does not work. With respect I think it is reasonably naive. Even if we quote Nanaia Mahuta who is a very considered and reflective contributor to debates in this House as she said and acknowledged the transitional cost in respect of this particular bill is quite significant. And it is quite significant. Let us just dive into some of the detail here.The report of the Social Workers Registration Board itself talks of course to the benefit of registration and the trend line of increasing numbers over the last few years from 3500 3 years ago lifting at about 500 or 600 a year to now over 5000. But if we reference of course the census of 2001 18327 people listed their occupation as social work. Then if you apply the definition that is listed in this bill “a person who practises social work” this is not a matter of a handful of thousands as the previous speaker suggested who are unregistered and would need to be transitioned to a mandatory registration regime within a year. We are talking of thousands upon thousands who could be caught up in the definition in respect of social work and being required to be mandatorily registered.So there is an effective question that the review that is currently under way needs to address. We all can talk with complementarity around the effectiveness of the registration of social workers. We now have over 5000 who have been registered. But if there are potentially another 10000 or more who could be caught up in this registration process who have given many years of their life in professional service doing fantastic work on the front line of what are some of the most difficult social challenges in this country but are not registered now and have not necessarily got formal qualifications to support their years of support and commitment to families and individuals in this country they need to be protected to ensure that their life’s work is acknowledged and can somehow be captured and acknowledged as part of a new mandatory framework. These are the difficult sorts of policy questions that the Social Workers Registration Board in its review is grappling with in terms of transition times and getting that definition accurate and appropriate.This review is getting close to its conclusion. It is not years away as some have suggested. The draft report as you have heard is due for the Minister in November and the final report is due in December. From that basis I think we will be able to see movement in this area in a far more considered and measured way than what is being suggested in this particular bill. In respect of the definitions that I have touched on already our view is that the definition as listed here is far too broad and when added to the I think pretty unsophisticated time line of 1 year it makes this completely unworkable.In conclusion my view is that there is good intent of course. The way this bill is written is not going to help the debate. Let us get that review finished. It is comprehensive. Let us reflect on that and then put a framework in place that delivers the right outcome and one that can sustain this very valuable profession into the future.