Social Workers Registration Scheme

The Hon. H.J. GUMBYS (17:22): Before I turn to the substance of this motion, I acknowledge the deep emotion attached to this debate. Questions about the safety and wellbeing of children, people experiencing domestic and family violence, people living with disability and other vulnerable South Australians deserve to be treated seriously. So do the experiences of the social workers who support them every day. The value of that work is evident in the breadth and seriousness of the responsibilities social workers carry.

They are often present at the most difficult moments in a person's life, working with children and families in crisis, patients navigating the health system, victim survivors seeking safety, and communities facing disadvantage, frequently under pressure and with limited resources. That is precisely why this government has approached the question of registration by looking not only at what may sound desirable in principle but at what the proposed scheme would mean in practice for workers, for services and the people who depend upon them.

The government has made a firm decision to cease implementation of the South Australian Social Workers Registration Scheme. That decision was not a judgement against professional standards, accountability or the social work profession. It reflects two immediate and serious concerns: the cost that a state-based scheme would impose on individual social workers and the workforce challenges it would create across essential services.

Establishing the scheme would have meant hundreds of dollars in registration fees for thousands of social workers. For those opposite, that may be easy to describe as an administrative requirement; for a worker already managing rising household costs, it is a real additional expense. We should be very cautious about imposing that expense unless we can be confident that the scheme is workable and proportionate and will deliver the intended benefit.

The consequences would not stop with the fee. A state-based scheme risks creating significant workforce pressure in child protection, health care and domestic and family violence services. These are not sectors with spare capacity: they are services in which a vacant position can mean a child waits longer, a family receives less support, a patient struggles to navigate care or a victim survivor has fewer options when seeking safety. The impact would be felt particularly sharply in rural and remote South Australia, where attracting and retaining qualified social workers can already be difficult.

A policy should not be assessed only by how it appears on paper. It must also be assessed on whether it helps services keep skilled workers where they are most needed. The government was not prepared to proceed with a model that could make an existing workforce challenge worse.

It is also important to recognise that the government's decision was welcomed by organisations with direct knowledge of these workers and services, including the Australian Services Union, representing social workers across the not-for-profit sector; Embolden, South Australia's peak body for domestic, family and sexual violence survivors; Child and Family Focus SA, representing not-for-profit and Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations in child protection; and the Reily Foundation, supporting parents navigating the child protection system.

These organisations do not approach this issue in the abstract. They understand the daily pressures on the workforce and the consequences for the people who rely on it. Their support does not mean that every stakeholder agrees, and the government does not pretend that it does. It does, however, demonstrate that the decision was grounded in genuine and substantial concerns shared across key parts of the sector.

The government remains open to registration being established at national level. Indeed, the Minister for Child Protection has advocated to the commonwealth government and to state and territory colleagues for a federal approach. A nationally consistent model would avoid many of the problems created when one jurisdiction acts alone. It would provide greater consistency for the profession while reducing the workforce distortions associated with a separate South Australian scheme. That is the constructive path forward: national cooperation, consistency across jurisdictions and a model that recognises both professional standards and workforce realities.

It is not inconsistent to support registration in principle while concluding that this particular state-based scheme is not feasible. Responsible government requires precisely that distinction. The motion before us does not establish a national scheme or solve the workforce pressures I have outlined. It proposes a select committee to revisit a decision the government has clearly made and publicly examined. A committee would again examine the rationale, consultation and expenditure associated with the former scheme. Accountability is important, but another parliamentary process is not automatically the best use of time and resources simply because those opposite disagree with the outcome.

Governments are often criticised in this place for moving too quickly and just as often for moving too slowly. In this instance, after the government has acted to provide certainty, the opposition proposes to extend the dispute through a select committee that would not remove a registration fee from a worker's household budget, fill a vacancy in a regional service or deliver a nationally consistent registration system. It would instead relitigate a settled state decision while the real work of advocating for a workable federal model continues.

Social workers deserve certainty. The organisations employing and representing them need to plan their services. Most importantly, children, families, parents, patients and victim survivors need a workforce that is available and able to support them. The government's priority is to protect that workforce while pursuing reform at the level at which it can be most effective. Those opposite are entitled to disagree with the government's decision, but disagreement alone is not a sufficient reason to establish a select committee, particularly where central policy concerns are already known. There are substantial costs for thousands of workers and significant workforce risks across child protection, health, domestic and family violence services, with rural and remote communities bearing the greatest pressure.

This government will continue to listen to social workers, unions, service providers and the communities they support. It will continue to advocate for a nationally consistent approach. What it will not do is impose a state-based scheme that risks making it harder for essential services to recruit and retain the people they need. For those reasons, the government does not support the establishment of this select committee and I therefore oppose the motion.