Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill – First Reading  – Video 7
Articles,  Blog

Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill – First Reading – Video 7

Derek Paul I think is pleased to rise on behalf of his you don’t first to speak on the social workers registration legislation bill it seems like it’s almost like a full circle for me sir because one of the first things that I did in the portfolio of Social Services three years ago was to realize that realize that for some strange reason social workers didn’t need to be mentor if registered and I was one of the 85 percent of the population that automatically assumed that they actually were because of the job in the role they were doing and because of that I put a member’s bill and to the ballot which was for the mandatory registration but specifically for those social workers that actually worked with vulnerable children all the children in general and then after that in carmell Sippel only put put Labor’s members billon but it was as long the same it was a long the same lines obviously we supported it and unfortunately government didn’t but I think it was highlighted by Jim McGee which came to us approach as a surprise to me as well because when the minister was speaking on cameo cipollinis members bill like the member said it was about the timing apparently but what I found was that there was a white paper on vulnerable children it’s quite literally states that it sits at a goal and expectations that child use and family will have a 100% registered professional work port workforce by 2015 which was the same year that the that kind of felonious bill was called and read so really what was the excuses for it I’m not sure sir I think that after after the the members bill was pulled from the ballot there was enough political expediency that was appreciated because of that and then they started the process from the issue so we are here now on the very final bill reading of the of this tomb but nonetheless sir I think that it’s important to understand firstly what the problem is that this bill is trying to fix or address and find out whether this bill is actually doing that sir and I know that it might seem like simple concept that everybody agrees to their every social worker should be mandatorily registered but what is the deeper meaning about why we want them to be registered suit and unfortunately it looks as though the government has taken the for want of a better term at the easy option in just wanting to protect the term social worker but not the actual effects or who that social worker works with or the role that they actually take on sir and I I hate to be the guy that goes down into the nuts and bolts of it and the details of the bill Shipp but that’s where it should really lies because on the surface of things it’s easier to say yes we support this and go through but we really need to make sure that if we do do it we do it once and we do it right sir and we need to get those details correct so in the extra bullets officer the objective one of the objectives and the main one is to ensure that social workers are competent fit to practice and that there are appropriate and official complaints and disciplinary processes in place and it sounds all good and there’s only a one sentence which which is this bill would have men to X so that the title social worker is protected that’s where it stops it doesn’t go into any other intent on on what this bill of legislation was supposed to be doing it’s all about the protection of that term social worker and doesn’t go into any real more depth from there and there are some other changes around the complaints of processes as well so what I want to do to highlight what the problem is really that this bill is trying to address is actually go to the social workers registration boards submission that they made to the social services committee in November 2016 see and they had five draft recommendations about why I work for and win and the three main ones that they have identified in their role is to make registration mandatory for social workers yes that’s that’s fine the sick one was we recommended the government permit only registered social workers to use the title social worker and that does occur in the substation sir but the most important one is a third one and they said that we recommend that the government permit only registered social workers to practice social work as defined in the regulations and unfortunately when you go digging down a little bit deeper into the actual bill sir it doesn’t quite address that recommendation and those are two very separate things protecting the social worker name only registered social workers to use the words that are used the term social worker and the other one which is only the registered social workers can practice social workers two separate and distinct things sue and within the legislation and the specific part of legislation was section 6 a be the definition of practicing as a social worker a sorry a person is practicing as a social worker for the purposes of this act if that person is a employed or engaged by another person and a position that described using the word social worker so again using the word social worker as an undertaking any work for gain or award holds him or herself out to be a social worker holds a position and a voluntary capacity or as a member of anybody or organization that is described using the word social worker holds a position or performs a role described in an enactment using the words social worker but then there’s another one which is e which says undertakes restricted work that’s all that it says is so the four provisions before that we’re all about the term social worker and the fifth one was and it takes restricted work and of course what does restricted work mean they’ve got definition and it means any task or activity that is described in an enactment with words to the effect that it can only be undertaken by a social worker and not only is that a vague definition of what restricted work is but unfortunately in the other documents that I have here which is the regulatory impact statement it specifically dates that the contrary to that sir and it actually enhances the ambiguity of that statement so in the regulatory and realtor impact statement it actually goes into the different recommendations or options that were given and discussed through the Select Committee and one of them the one that the Select Committee agreed to and recommended to sue was that the government permit only registered social workers to practice Social Work as defined in a legislative instrument and that Social Work definition is a thing that is missing soon what that legislation that I just really out was a totally different option that the minister has gone in the road in pathway that she has gone down down through sue and there are some big problems with it it states and the option that theory and the recommendation through this are is and that the minister did take a concert that this change would move to total protection of the wydad title social worker which it does however any non registered person may carry out those activities as long as they do not use the protected titles so what it’s saying sir is that anyone can do any person can carry out the same activities that the so called registered social worker is doing but there as long as they don’t use the term social worker so that’s what happens when we concentrate and when the government has taken the easy option and concentrating solely on protecting the title because it leaves a pathway open of individuals to do that same work or organizations to you to create the same role but not call a Social Work role now what’s the problem that we’re trying to be solving here is it is it just a protection of that term social worker or is it protecting the people that they are working with is it the role that they are working with sue it also goes on on its aim option that the minister has agreed to go now they made sure to respond this is current social workers see so current social workers who were still unwilling to register could lose their livelihoods they may choose to respond by change in their title for example to community worker and likewise employers may change I choose to change job titles to retain non bridges and stuff so we’re targeting the name we’re not targeting the echo actual role in occupation that they are filling cert and it is entirely a contrary it is entirely contrary to the intent with which we remember in this house and I know that the members pool come I see polonius members bill and mine as well was to protect vulnerable people and to protect those clients and this legislation we’ve got very large consumer concerns and a number of them sue about whether this legislation actually will achieve that and how we can go through that through the Select Committee process hopefully the Melissa can answer those questions and waylay those concerns but will be very interested to hear all of the submissions on this through up the next stages here thank you I’m heat power Thank You mr. speaker it’s great to have the supper

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *