Lost Voice 5 AUGUST - PDF Submissions and The Disconnect Around The Registration of Social Workers Act 2003

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the Social Work Registration Act (SWRA) 2003?
A research report presented in partial fulfilment of the Requirements for the degree of Masters of Social Work (Applied) At Massey University, Palmerston North, Aotearoa New Zealand.
Merrill Simmons-Hansen. Student ID: 89034981. 2010 This work represents original data gathering and analysis Copyright 2013-Merrill Simmons-Hansen. To reproduce for personal use please ask.
Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?
M.S.H.
Abstract.
This research report examines the voices of those who made submissions in respect of the Social Workers Registration Bill (SWRB). It explores within those submissions the Te Tiriti o Waitangi discourse using a documentary analysis methodology. The research found that despite submitters support for naming Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the legislation, it was not included in the Social Workers Registration Act (SWRA) (2003). I argue that the effect of this was a silencing of the submitters voices and of the bicultural commitment tradition within the social work profession. The resulting Act promotes a standard setting discourse, rather than respecting narratives which may develop accountability in context of whanau, hapu, iwi, one in which women social workers and Maori social workers engage in the terms and the agreement. Many submitters argued however, that inclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi would produce meaning thus informing the Act enabling negotiation of just power relationships in Aotearoa. Their recommendations encouraged social workers to become reflective regarding the powerknowledge continuum, their understanding of the Act, and its underpinning of a hoped for social justice tradition. To ensure accountability social workers take this understanding into their social work as an invitational practice, in both contextual and collaborative searches for meaning and accountability.
ii
M.S.H.
Acknowledgments:
First I acknowledge the original submission writers, as without their courageous voices this research would have been not possible. I acknowledge my supervisor Kieran ODonoghue whose fidelity, enthusiasm and patience then has supported me to move from a tangle of original ideas to research and form this document. Thank you sincerely. I acknowledge also Emma Webber Dreadon, valued colleague Ngati Kahu, Ngati Apatari, Te Uri-o-Te-O-Tane ki Wairoa. Emma, like Kieran believed there were lost voices. That this study might do those justice required your faith. I am thankful to my parents for generating a respect for questions, those companions that travel alongside one, inviting possibilities. Thanks also is well overdue to my partner Wol, for sharing in conversations, and accepting my vanishing away to write . Equally, my appreciation goes out to my brothers, my children and families for acknowledging my study yet also asking where I was? This offered me the necessary shelter of relationships still warm to return to after writing. Thank you. I acknowledge my daughter Louisa for her patience, both with conversation, my writing, and the technological issues that were to be mastered. I look forward to her wise capacity for enabling further writing that is liberating. In the many moments of my own limitations with the written word, I recalled thosere imaginings offered by others in whanau, hapu, social services who shared with me . These caught my minds eye like sunshine catches on dew, and enabled this work. Thank you all. May those voices be heard within this work, for without relationship we diminish and are eternal no more. I acknowledgment the land and the ancestors, which may nourish us all long after the ink of any writing fades: that in my grandfathers tongue, gaelic Do mo cairde a tug, foscad agus solas-to the land and the ancestors. We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. Through the unknown, unremembered gate.T.S. Eliots Little Gidding (last stanza).
iii
M.S.H.
Table of Contents
Abstract................................................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................iii Table of Contents..................................................................................................................iv List of Figures and Tables v Chapter One: An Introduction..............................................................................................1 Aims and objectives of the research The Research Question Researchers interest in the topic and analytic framework The context and Key concepts used in this The structure of the report. Chapter Two: Literature Review............................................................................................ 10 Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the development of social work in Aotearoa New Zealand. Conclusion. Chapter Three: Research Design/Methodology......................................................................29 The Documentary Analysis Approach Research Design. Selection, accessing, collection of documents Procedures used in data analysis The Ethics of the study Difficulties faced.. The Limitations of the research methodology Conclusion. Chapter Four: Results and discussion....................................................................................43 Introducing the submissions voices Themes from the submissions The official response The implications, meanings and alternatives possibilities Chapter Five: Conclusion62 Review of the research, objectives and question, Key Findings Implications for social work Recommendations Concluding reflections Appendices Appendix 1.............................................................................................................. 76 Appendix 2......................................................................................................... ...82 Appendix 3 .......87 Glossary 88 References .....90
iv
M.S.H.
List of Figures and Tables Table 1 (Themes in social work discourses).....20 Table 2 (ANZASW Bicultural partnerships). 21 Table 3.1 (Analysis; positioning relationships)..22 Table 3.2 (Stages in the Document Research).32 Table 3.3 (Steps in Research procedure)..36 Table 3.4 (Te Tiriti and related discourses shaping Law and Lore) 38
Table 4 (comparison and contrast of documents)..44
M.S.H.
vi
M.S.H.
Chapter One: Introduction. This chapter introduces the research and overviews the topic. It presents the aims and objectives of the research, the research question, the researchers interest in the topic, and establishes the analytic framework and context and concepts used throughout this research. This study explores submissions to the final formation of the Social Workers Registration Act (2003), (SWRA (2003)) within Aotearoa New Zealand and reasons why Te Tiriti is not named in the SWRA (2003) and reasons that the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi, 1840) clearly identifies Maori as people of this land with inherent rights, responsibilities and relationships (Durie, 1995). Te Tiriti is seen acknowledging terms of agreement between peoples of the Treaty (tangata Te Tiriti) with rights towards Maori and to a Te Tiriti based society (ANZASW 2008). Te Tiriti today continues to inform understanding and identity within Aotearoa. This research aims to respond to that tradition of relationship and therefore of accountability (Sampson, 2003, in Drewery, 2005) with people of Te Tiriti (tangata Te Tiriti), people of the land (tangata whenua), and within the negotiation of bicultural relationships. To understand bicultural treaty based relationships it is important to recognize that different definitions emphasise particular dimensions of biculturalism within varied cultural and political contexts. For example, Kelsey, (1991), and Ritchie, (2003) argue that biculturalism is a potentiality emerging from Maori tino rangatiratanga (absolute integrity of whanau, hapu). Herbert (2002 in Smithers, 2007) suggests that four critique or analysis inform the bicultural treaty based relationships. These are as follows : Firstly, structural biculturalism identified in the partnership between Maori and the Crown. Secondly, bicultural partnerships represent others and Maori.
1
M.S.H.
Thirdly, symbolic biculturalism is through the expression of rights and responsibilities of all New Zealanders. Fourthly, that material biculturalism in the redress of historical wrongdoing. These four analysis points inform the writer, reader through this study process. Te Tiriti then, informed non Maori in becoming biculturally appropriate, or being bicultural (Smithers, 2007). In other words, concepts enabling Maori selfdetermination become as critical analysis principles that guides bicultural social workers in their practice and relationships. Simultaneously, this principle informs safe accountable relationships. Contemporary discussions for the registration of social workers sought to delineate safety and accountability by the creation of the SWRA (2003). This is exampled in the consultation hui, meetings prior to developing the draft. Bicultural work to enable partnership between Maori and the Crown could inform safety as carefully negotiated responsibilities, accountabilities for distinct hapu, iwi, Maori, communities in such an Act. Active partnership with hapu Maori involvement is essential (Durie, 1995). The recognition of Te Tiriti within the social work profession (Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW)) is identified from the establishment of The Waitangi Tribunal (from the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975). Puao Te Ata Tu-Day Break (1986) a report which identified a culture of racism within the Department of Social Welfare. These recommendations about cultural based practices when working with Maori offered a repositioning for non Maori when working with Maori. Non Maori (Pakeha) social workers seeking non racist approach to working became conscious of distinctions previously silenced. They as social workers had been in authority as expert in their professional knowledge (Hartman 1992).
M.S.H.
The call to consult with whanau, hapu, when working with Maori children as legislated in the Child Young Persons and their Families Act (1989) marked a fundamental call to cultural accountability. Knowledge as no longer value free, as culturally constructed became central. Recommendations in the CYF Act(1989) for social workers to consult with whanau enabled the specific examination of whose knowledge and power informed care of vulnerable children when engaging with whanau, hapu, and iwi. Opportunity existed for the acknowledgment of personal, structural and institutional racism against Maori by a State welfare system, from which Social work was delivered in ways which reflected non Maori values. Within the ANZASW profession membership called for recognition and redress of racism and developed a bicultural model of governance and also Maori and non Maori Chairpersons. Further to this intent, the Kaiwhakahaere role was established, serving to centralize Maori knowledge to guide all governance work of the profession, including the caucusing of Maori members. This extended to ANZASW introduction of powhiri( ritual for safe passage of visitors and home people together), waiata (ancestral and supportive songs and tributes), to focus bicultural practice. The initial stage of the SWRA (2003) commenced with its introduction as a Parliamentary Bill in September 2001. Community members, tangata whenua, social workers, social services, the International Federation of Social Workers and the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) along with others produced thirty-seven submissions with the intent to inform the meaning of the eventual Act. There was an expectation that the registration of Social Workers would provide greater protection to recipients of social work services, many of whom were vulnerable from harm that may result from poor social work practice. Simultaneously significant shifts were occurring in the welfare state, (SWR Bill Commentary 155-2) (OBrien, 2009).
M.S.H.
This research onwards seeks to understand how the voices in the submissions influenced the formation of the Act. The researcher was mindful of Te Tiriti based society and how social work practitioners may recognize this in their work. In the following chapter the contextual background pertaining to the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in Aotearoa New Zealand in terms of social consciousness, law, social work and the call to Registration within the role of Te Tiriti within that journey will be discussed as the background to the Social Workers Registration Bill (2002) ((SWRB 2002)).
Background The reader is advised that a fuller genealogy of the SWRB will be discussed in the next chapter (see Chapter 2). The immediate background to the bill starts as a consequence of the 1999 election of the Labour Government and was part of their manifesto. Within his report presented by former Youth Court Judge, Mick Brown(2000) reviewing the Department Child Youth and Family Services procedures observed 44% of front line staff, and 55% of new staff held B level social work qualifications, that the service had capacity issues about releasing staff for training, and that there were concerns associated with a high staff turnover and high case loads. The Crown report (2000) recommended that registration of social workers be given urgency, and that by mid 2002 social workers were not to exercise statutory powers except if they were co-working with registered social workers or members of the police. The Department was to have an agreed percentage of registered staff realized by mid 2002 (Bills Digest No 818). The response of the Government of the time recorded in Member of Parliament Honorable Steve Maharey correspondence was to commit to this notion of a fully
M.S.H.
skilled social work staff and that the Social Work Registration Bill would be introduced. In this time frame, the Ministry of Social Policy discussion paper identified a number of complexities (2000). For example: there were relational differences required to define social work,(pg 1) variations in levels of staff qualifications, (pg 2) 36% of social workers were employed by central government (pg14, an industry educator (Te Kai Awhina Ahumahi) existed for social services, diffidence about the professional body ANZASW principle of a face to face competency assessment process for provisional to full membership approval. From here, the Bill was put before Parliament and then referred to the Social Services Select Committee. Here the bill was to be commented on through a process of receiving written submissions, discussion. The general support for registration developed to promote that registration be compulsory for statutory governmental social workers. A general meeting of social workers had proposed registration should be independent of government. It is noteworthy that with this discourse, the notions of safe and accountable relationship would occur through relationships to public and the profession (Bills Digest, No 818, pg 3/8). Throughout the consultation phase of the process there was wide support for Treaty of Waitangi based constitution shaping the registration of social workers; the following research traces all collective submissions which inform this statement-(see Findings chapter). Discussion included a separate registration body for Maori social workers and consideration be given the appropriate representation of different ethnic values, in how these informed speaking and behaving safely and with accountability to
5
M.S.H.
those made vulnerable, in need, less able to access justice. Exploring the conveying of these traditions and difference as expressed in the submissions informing the Act then became the focus for the research.
Aims of the research The aims and objective of the research are to explore the voices of the submitters, and how they may have informed the formation of the Act. The research around 'Te Tiriti' as a discourse would occur through the researcher applying the four critiques described by Herbert (Herbert 2002 in Smithers 2007). This approach would examine linkage to the indigenous tradition in Aotearoa and social work, this sensitising notion (developed in Herberts critique( in Smithers 2007) guides the researcher in examining voices held in submission documents, the Act, as well as any associated implications.
Research question Lost Voices, Why is Te Tiriti not named in the Social Workers Registration Act (2003)? The consideration of the research question was the focus. By applying critique in Herberts approach(in Smithers 2007) the researchers develops what may be lost from the submission process to the legislation, and what may be lost between Maori and Te Tiriti informed work, and the social work produced under the SWRA. (2003). Researchers interest in the topic.
As a social worker and the researcher I have a curiosity about language

6
M.S.H.
particularly in terms of how language reflects the creators thinking, and also equally shapes the way people may respond, think, and the choices they allow themselves to engage with their world. The practice of discourses spoken, written, conveyed in architecture, arts, equally link to social structures (Winslade, 2002). I wish to discover how the SWRA (2003) was formed (constituted) through the language and discourse as well as its effect in terms of what language is available to social workers to describe their work (Foucault, 1972) (Winslade, 2002).
With regards to the research the exploration of language through a document analysis methodology allows examination of the voices in the submissions seeking to inform the SWRA (2003). For myself as social worker and researcher this activity is consistent with social workers working for social justice-inclusion, equity (ANZASW, Code of Ethics, 2008).That ANZASW social workers are encouraged to be mindful of the assumptions that serve to conceal power inequalities in society, of dominating discourses that reposition self determination offers again pertinent to the research about legislation itself for contributing to recognition of registered social workers (Everitt, Hardiker, Littlewood, & Mullender, 1992). To myself as the researcher that the social worker may or may not recognise their voice in the Act, may add to the inclusion/exclusion of their expertise. Self, voice and formation of identity are argued as significant in contribution to women and therefore women social work development (White, 1991, cited in Drewery, 2005).
The researchers interest is in language and how this is constructed within dominating discourses that may silence key understandings. The researchers challenge was to illustrate where loss was present, to highlight the significance of the loss and its value, to better enable equitable access and just relationships.
7
M.S.H.
The sensitisation offered in the research question could enable what was lost being raised to be heard in that the submitters meaning was sought to then enable the research objectives. Factors that reposition gender and race losses, including opportunity for democratic participation by citizens, by women, by Maori, and professionals in their profession concern the researcher in the Aotearoa context (Cheyne, O'Brien, Belgrave, (2000) (Drewery, 2005).
Analytical framework and context
The submissions and related documents offer literature and wordings as tangible measures from which to consider the submitters concerns. This is through the use of document analysis as a methodology. By the researcher being sensitised to what is 'lost' in documents, then this methodologys strength is to enable those written elements to be recognised and therefore heard. By applying then, a sensitising notion as held in submission documents (A) (which referenced Te Tiriti), then noticing of any of this data in the Act (B), the submitters voices could be recognised, be seen as heard. Further that through sensitisation by the key word search of Te Tiriti, the relationship of respect with Maori and that tradition of symbolic biculturalism (Herbert in Smithers 2007) seeking to inform social work could be kept uppermost in the study (Burr, 2003; Patton 2002; Ranginui, 1989; Puao Te Ata Tu 1986). That language is recognised as having a creative attribute also informs the implication of this research, as discourses create what they describe (Winslade, 2002). This in turn informs social work analysis in that it makes evident hidden assumptions that disadvantage or advantage relationships. Theories such as antiracism and feminism enable the recognition in language of the different advantaging or exclusion of peoples (based on ethnicity and gender), and
8
M.S.H.
informed the resulting analysis through the comparison and contrast of data from the submissions and the Act. A discursive analysis helped describe the theoretical and practical implications around subjugation noted in the study.
The analytical context is informed by theories that seek to critique power and exclusion and are consistent with the call for mindfulness of self determination and avoidance of exclusion in Aotearoa social work (ANZASW Code of Ethics, 2008). This context is crucial given the limitation in the location and analysis of any text, and became informed by the researchers literature review and substantive concerns (Weber, 1985). The challenge to establish what may be seen as non consequential since now the SWR Act (2003) is formed and this is written seven years into Registration environment, remains however valid for the research offers diverse reflections. One reflection is the way legislation. As the researchers the formation of this report intended that others can be enabled to access the documents studied. That the data in the research is examined in context of the original submission before being interpreted, redresses any personal bias. The data applicability then is applied within its authors intent so that voices are not lost, that the research itself is recognised as maintaining and producing subjectivity. submission writing may contribute towards final
The Structure of the report Chapter two introduces the reader to the background in a literature review, which examines the context of the study within the history of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the development of social work Aotearoa New Zealand. This extensive discussion is
9
M.S.H.
summed up in the chapter conclusion. This leads to the methodology chapter. In chapter three, the reader is lead through the research design/methodology, and introduced to the documentary analysis approach. The research design, selection, accessing, collection of documents are described. Procedures used in data analysis and the ethics of the study are considered along with difficulties faced. The limitations of the research methodology and conclusion follow the conclusions. The findings are presented in chapter four. The results and discussion follow the introduction of the submissions voices, the themes from the submissions, and the official response. The implications, meanings and alternative rising out of the findings are then discussed. Chapter five covers the conclusion. This reflects on the study by offering a review of the research, objectives and question, along with the key findings, and identifies some of the implications for social work. The report concludes with recommendations and the researchers concluding reflections.
10
M.S.H.
Chapter Two: The Literature Review examining Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Development of Social Work in Aotearoa New Zealand
To inform the context for this research, the following literature review focuses on three discourses as ways of seeing the world in historical narratives. The first locates Te Tiriti o Waitangi within the context of Aotearoa New Zealand as a discourse informing social consciousness, law, and social work. The second discourse discusses the development of the profession of social work in Aotearoa New Zealand, particularly informed by postmodernist ideas of how post-industrial society affects the social sphere of the practice. The third discourse traces the placement of Te Tiriti o Waitangi within the journey towards social work registration.
Discourse: The contextual background Discourse analysis will be used as the framework informing this study. Theorists have suggested that discourse forms the object of which it speaks and so has an active ability (Foucault, 1972) and can push people about. Through a researchers critical examination of discourse, the use of language is seen as implicitly connected to structures in society, law, economics, and culture which evidences notions of power (Payne, 1997; Shannon, 1999; Foucault, 1972). In a general sense, people interpret and understand their experience and perception through socially agreed representations. Their constructions of relationships then consequentially shape the response of social work to modern society (Parton, 1996 cited in Payne, 1997). For this study, the researcher examines the agreements which informed the Social Work Registration Act (2003) (SWRA (2003)), how they are connected to social structures and how the Act came
11
M.S.H.
about. As a discourse, SWRA (2003) produces social work. The Act defines the standards in regard to competence, qualifications and fitness for practice, relating these to the protection of the public. Foucault (1997) describes how producing knowledge generates power. The SWR Act as discourse generate knowledge of what is a registered social worker, and this power also results in a positioning of workers as registered (or not). This can be argued as a class system now is established of registered and non registered. This is power arguably created in the construction of people, rather than only in the repressing of them (Winslade, 2002). It should also be noted that the language used to construct discourse also carries immense cultural weight and gender validation (Bond, 2002) (Pinkolas Estes 1992). With this weighting typically privileging those dominant traditions. Dominant traditions have shaped notions of social justice (as fair equitable access) and the representation of human rights, which underpin social work differently across time (OBrien, 2009). For example, social workers once aided striking workers but such practice is uncommon today (Ventura, 2005). As the researcher I remain aware of older traditions around power embedded in this land, traditions marking a very different analysis of power. By the power to work collectively for example, whanau hapu have remained successful across diverse environments and landscapes (Durie 2007). This power informs hapu notions of understanding of landscape, how trust, responsibility and rights form (Jackson, 2010, ODonoghue, 2003; OBrien, 2009; Shannon, 1999). Acknowledgment must be made to how a Nation State forms from other values and interacts upon hapu traditions.
12
M.S.H.
Power is also played out in employment, and the employment of social workers. The employment pattern also interacts on the female gender. Social work is largely practiced by women. The employment terms requiring registered social workers in roles can shape the recognition of women and their knowledge which they bring to social work relationships. This may be as a subjective nature to understanding power within gendered relationship informing the practice of social work as well as those contexts where traditional dynamics of power are recognized (Shannon, 1999). These are further examples, the cultural, economic and political notions. The notions of economic power play out where a user pays for an hour session in practice that is individual focused. Alternatively the economic power structures may be overthrown in transformative social practice where structures around the distribution of resources are the focus for change in individual lives. Conversely those notions of power in economics will not be critiqued where practice is dominated by power aligned to maintaining social order where the focus is to enable the individual to resume their place in that current social ordering (Payne, 2006, Roy, 2005). Critical analysis is concerned with mediation of power for social arrangements, such as the SWR Act (2003). Paynes (2006) three views are helpful for analysis of power here. First, the therapeutic view in which social work is seen to seek the best possible means of wellbeing for individual and community and likewise, interacts with other two views. Second, the transformative view seeks that changes originate from communities for the benefit of the poor and oppressed. The third is a social order view. This sees social work maintaining the social order and fabric by supporting individuals through difficulty. These three views interact, at times align, and at times also compete. The
13
M.S.H.
researcher proposes the three also function to position the activities and purpose of social work, and social workers in any society. Further that a parallel journey occurs through any justice based intervention of the worker (Payne, 2006, Jenkins, 2009). Through discourses such as the SWRA (2003) the concept of the State and the registered social worker interacting in part with a therapeutic role. They ultimately generate and maintain a social order through the SWR Act (2003) discourse. Here there is arguably an emphasis on compliance generated in worker, community and employer obedience (Roy, 2005; Cumming, 1985; Payne, 2006). Should social workers disregard, by their noncompliant toward a discourse, then those associated power structures diminish or fail (Winslade, 2002). This research attempts to investigate the place of Te Tiriti in the SWRA (2003) as a social work structure is investigated through this research. The following section overviews Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a discourse, and explores its place within Aotearoa as a way to see the world social consciousness, law and social work.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi as discourse The Treaty as a way to see the world both names and produces the power relationship of Maori and the settler culture in both oral and written form as a basis for settlement in 1840 (Winslade, 2002; Durie, 2003). As a discourse Te Tiriti informed the agreed relationships between Maori and non-Maori across a range of power interactions, including those within social work (Power & Sharp, 2001; Fleras & Spoonley, 1999; Cram, 2001; ANZASW, 2008). This power of Maori naming their world (Ryde, 2009 citing McIntosh, 1988) marked ways of articulating integrity, in which the relational world of two peoples reflected interwoven sets of power relationships (Jackson, 2010). All of this land was
14
M.S.H.
(connected) to Maori prior to 1840 (Jackson 2010). These relationships then and today to mark the distinction of self and others, offering a way to redress eurocentrism. To uphold self-determination within the dominant capitalist model with its associated form of democracy and notions of law (Drewery, 2005; Seed Pihama, 2005; Roy, 2005). The Treaty discourse was formed in two languages, each with discrete values and notions of safe or accountable relationships (Durie, 1991). This research focus on the Maori version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (1840), as both hapu members and the Waitangi Tribunal argued as the version that enables Maori as people of the land and enhances their relational world.
Te Tiriti and Social Consciousness I now explore the origins of the Treaty as an agreement and how it came about through to the present day from a social perspective. The origins of Te Tiriti o Waitangi emerged from the preliminary amicable negotiations of two cultures (Williams, 1989; Yensen et al., 1989). The context in which Te Tiriti arose was one of oral and written treaty making. This tradition arose to address the threats to integrity by settlers seeking land ownership in a way that was foreign to Maori relationship values (Consedine & Consedine, 2005). Te Tiriti drew from critical analysis of power. Power held that transformative value in social consciousness that today requires a parallel journey by the social worker (Payne, 1997). Accordingly this notion of transformative power emerged for Maori from a tradition of treaty-making that acknowledged the Maori world. As a tribal identity represented a socially agreed representation of their world by mandating tino rangatiratanga (absolute integrity)(Drewery, 2005).
15
M.S.H.
From this representation Maori integrity in tribal, hapu, whanau authority was the basis for any alliance with settlers (Durie, 1991) (Durie, 2003; Yensen, Hague, McCreanor et al, 1989) and continues to inform contemporary life as all social work occurs where history of whanau explicitly connects to land (ODonoghue, 2003). In Maori tradition there is no individual private title or ownership of property, only tribal relationships (Durie, 2005). Treaty making (as an extant picture, as a socially agreed representation of the world) as is whakapapa (ancestry), informed understanding of the world and natural phenomena (Woller, 2005). For Maori then, their understanding of treaty making was to produce a means of providing settlers with land use rights; Maori considered they would retain the traditional guardianship of the whenua, land, as evidenced at the Treaty signing with the words: the substance of the land remains with us (Panakareao, cited in Wards, 1832). In this way, it is acknowledged that the understanding of difference was clear. From the British perspective the creation of its new colony began with treaty making, followed by introduction of British law (e.g. the Land Settlement Act 1853) which positioned Maori in a relationship with the British monarchy, on British terms (Vaggioli, 1896; Orange, 1990). This positioning was understood and illustrated by Maori, as revealed by Panakareao a year after the Treaty was signed where he says: the substance of the land goes to European; the shadow only will be our portion (cited in Wards, 1832) (Webber Dreadon 1999). In other words, British colony making was informed by a different discourse from that of Maori and this discourse sought to shape society in Aotearoa. One illustration of this for the British was their use of English to inform their signed version of Treaty of Waitangi (and then this shaped their version for Maori; for
16
M.S.H.
the hapu and iwi the meanings held in the Maori world, conveyed in te reo, the Maori language, informed the Te Tiriti O Waitangi). The social values in each of the Treaty versions varied, particularly in regard to Article One term, kawanatanga, which for the British held a translated meaning of complete surrender of Maori tribal authority, and as informed for Maori (from access to English in Biblical readings), as a benevolent governor of the English Crown, supportive of Maori social integrity (Orange, 1990) (Yensen et al, 1989). These differences reflected the distinct social structures between the two cultures, carried in language such as benevolent governorship and tribal authority (rangatiratanga) (http://www.nzhistory.net.nz).
The background and signing of Te Tiriti Te Tiriti, as a discourse, is connected to the social structuring of the time. As a socially agreed representation there was a tradition to inform contemporary ideals. In the 19th century Maori had sought their independence in the country by initiating The Declaration of Independence (1835) under the United Tribes of New Zealand (Consedine et al, 2005). This recognition of Maori sovereignty and independence then required Britains mechanism to justify imposing its own notions of regulated colonisation by law on Maori (Durie, 1998) (http://www.nzhistory.net.nz retrieved 25/11/09). Maori had requested intervention to deal with the lawlessness of British settlers (1831). Motivated by advantaging British interest, the British Colonial office appointed Hobson to negotiate a treaty which both sides fully understood. Te Tiriti was signed by sufficient number of chiefs (Consedine et al., 2005) (http://www.nzhistory.net.nz) which showed that Hobson acknowledged Maori centrality, while also acting to achieve British colonization by a legal discourse which enabled the colonisers centrality; this led to attempts in managing Maori society through laws about land sales under governorship of New South Wales (http://www.nzhistory.net.nz).
17
M.S.H.
The English version of the Treaty reflects Hobsons notions (Moon in Consedine et al., 2005, Orange, 1990, Cook, 2008). The Treaty was signed on 6 February 1840, with most Maori signing copies of the Maori text only. On 21st May the same year Hobson announced sovereignty over all of the country claiming the North island by cession and, dismissive of Maori inhabitation, of the South island by discovery (http://www.nzhistory.net.nz).
The Treaty making and British law making The British understanding of the world was informed by extensive colonisation, and law making conducted only in Britain, in the House of Commons and House of Lords (Consedine et al, 2005). As part of the making of a colony, the British practice was to set the terms under their version of a Treaty shaped according to the structure of colonial law in an outreach of their own country. This meant a dismissal of Maori integrity and a demand that Maori surrender, and this perpetuated the British notion of relations, positioning themselves as a ruling class/culture and colonial authority over tribal tenure of land and resources. Such unchecked British colonising discourse is the historical foundation of settler wealth in the migrants relationship to ownership by land title (Consedine et al 2005). After the signing of the Treaty the British sought to cultivate loyalty among Maori. The results of which disadvantaged the Maori lore of mediated relationship and added to the genocide of some unable to move from their traditional ways of debate and treaty making (Durie 2005). By 1842, in the need for survival and pledging loyalty to the English Queen, Maori became described as natives and were subject to externalized British law. They gradually were divided into un
18
M.S.H.
friendly iwi and friendly iwi. Friendly Maori were selected for roles in the 1846 British Resident Magistrate Courts, and became subject to the 1863 New Zealand Settlement Act which took land away from unfriendly Maori (such as Pai Marire whom resisted the Crown). 50,000 acres were distributed to friendly' natives, ultimately furthering suspicion of independent Maori sales with the New Zealand Company (Tauranga 1860, Kahotea, 2009) (Wairau incident, 1843, Timeline http://nzhistory.net.nz). The legislation endorsed the discourse of the coloniser, positioning law as external to the lives of the peoples colonised through overriding the agreement in Te Tiriti of the Maori world of whanau. The Crown saw the Treaty as granting exclusive rights to purchase Maori land. By 1845 Governor Grey claimed a victory centred on his notion of Maori submission when Heke and Kawitis forces withdrew at Ruapekapeka. The resulting British government decree (1846) that all Maori land was to be registered and unused surplus land was to be Crown owned again threatened Maori relationship. Differences in Crown discourse on the Treaty of Waitangis status under the law are apparent however in the contrast between a legal case in which native title was recognised as a right of customary use (Chief Justice Martin and Justice Redmond in R v. Symonds 1847) with that of mainstream settler society (see Durie, 1995; ODonoghue, 2003, p.54). When the administration shifted to a settler government (New Zealand Constitution Act), tribal Maori became subjected to the individualisation of property ownership. Resulting from this unwelcome positioning, and following general government unresponsiveness to Maori, were the New Zealand Wars, in which many Maori died, and war crimes were committed, the sentiment of this period reflected in the Treaty being declared a nullity in the infamous judgment of Prendergast (Parata W. v the Bishop of Wellington (1877)). Such discourses then impacted on what the settler dominated government agreed as social representations of reality,
19
M.S.H.
continued into contemporary social justice relationships of the 1970s (Belich, 1996). The Waitangi Tribunal (created in 1970 and codified in The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975), resulted from Maori petitioning government and in its jurisdiction began re informing the very basis of views on social order during this conservative period. Various bicultural discourses of the 1980s and 1990s eventually extended this to the extent where it was noted that all future legislation should regard implications for recognition of the principles of the Treaty, and government departments were required to start consulting with Maori. Despite this apparent progress, changes remained largely rhetoric (Puao Te Ata Tu, 1986) (Durie, 1995) and inequity in access to resources continued for Maori (Durie, 1995). It should be noted that it was Maori whom had claimed the unique space for recognition leading to the creation of the Waitangi Tribunal (1970). These spaces give recognition to the power relationships in both Te Tiriti and traditional lore (Belich, 1996; Payne, 1997) with hope for specific relationships in which Maori receive equal consideration with Pakeha, and are able to equally determine the course of this country (Awatere, 1989 in Yensen et al, pg. 144). The fact that Maori sovereignty was never ceded, and was affirmed in both the Declaration of Independence and Te Tiriti, offers an opportunity to delineate the practice of colonisation and to see how that practice continues to shape social, economic and constitutional conflict over the past 170 years (Armstrong, 2010). All of this land was known to Maori prior to 1840, currently only 2 % of this whole remains in Maori hands; that is an injustice!(Jackson, 2010).
The social work discourse within Aotearoa New Zealand The social work discourse is informed by that of Aotearoa New Zealand society,
20
M.S.H.
where there has been a shift from the philanthropic therapeutic values to the meaning in post industrial society which frames social services within the language of modern economic concepts and shapes the social sphere of the practice (Payne, 2006). Three political poles of post industrial society, of individual reformist, socialist collectivist, and reflexive therapeutic values, engage the people and carry their shared social meaning in power relationships, practices in families, whanau, and within the institutes, statutory and therapeutic relationships where people participate.(Payne, 2006; Jenkins, 2009, Foucault, 1972)(see Table 1). Significant changes emerged through the professional association Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) in the last decades of the twentieth-century. Informed by political explanations and seeing interventions in terms of power relationships (colonising) members found an ethical basis to develop ways of relating (Jenkins, 2009). For example, ANZASW took on Aotearoa in its name as an explicit example about its aim for biculturalism, in which Maori and non-Maori remain in partnership through natural, spiritual and human dimensions (Ruwhiu, 2001 in ODonoghue, 2003, pg.120). Yet within the practices shaped within institutions, statutory therapeutic settings, a monocultural process remained wherein policy had become dominated by social control views in which the context of peoples lives remained largely ignored (Maharey, 1998). The recognition of Puao Te Ata Tu (1986) (Corrigan, 2000) opened space to recognise racism and mediate bicultural professionalism (see: Table 1). Advocacy for Maori self-determination resulted in Maori and non-Maori members engaging with personal and structural racism in ways enabling of a Maori world, while mediating the changes to services resulting from the reduction in state welfare provision in New Zealand (see: Table 1 for themes) (Beddoe & Randal,
21
M.S.H.
1994 in Munford et al. 1994 ).
Table 1. Reflection on themes in Social work discourses in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Period
Early Welfare Tradition Both indigenous and Residential Welfare Recognition of a Profession 1949-1972 Consolidation 1973-1986 social work defined in task, agency, setting, profession (Social order). professionalism status distinct from accountability & Community (Therapeutic v social order) education, training professional recognitionsought notions of difference practice standards Puao Te Ata Tu 1986 gradually seen as occupation. mediate focus on themes of social justice ethics, professionalism mediate profession within new right ideology: Shift from State provision to family & community
Discourse
philanthropy-manaakitanga
Issues
(Therapeutic)
Ethos
Knowledge(s)
Debating Professionalism 1987-2002
social work Treaty partnership within social justice competency assessment Discourses of & registration cost effectiveness Kahukura 1991 narrowing role of social work. (Transformative-v social order) SWRA marks itself as dominant discourse (Social order)
Registration Era 2003 to present
Competency assessment Bi Culturalism Reg. board assess courses Classical notions v. Voices seeking social justice, tensions for divergent protocols and Associations (Adapted from Nash, in Connolly & Harms, 2009 p369, Payne 2006).
For the ANZASW, biculturalism as a transformative notion required a shift in power in its organisation in order for the articulation of a Maori perspective by Maori people, a centering of Maori in a predominantly non-Maori orientated organization (Payne, 2006). ANZASW sought to express a bicultural profession informed by a New Zealand tradition of Te Tiriti. This was then to inform a bicultural component of social work competency a reflexive therapeutic practice where worker and profession interact to respond to their social concerns (see Table 2). ODonoghue (2003) describes Te Tiriti as the foundation of social justice and human rights in Aotearoa because without this acknowledgment, anti22
M.S.H.
oppression and anti-discrimination would be irrelevant. Table 2 below outlines the key features of the bicultural partnership within the ANZASW body involving a recognition of the two Treaty partners, the Associations commitment to partnership by sharing of power through rotation of the Presidential role (Maori, non Maori), in use of space and in process as both analytic and active (McNabb, 1997; ODonoghue, 2003). Table 2 ANZASW: Present-day arrangements specifying what are bi cultural partnerships Maori members able to caucus separate from Tauiwi (non Maori); The president role alternating between Maori and Tauiwi; Maori tikanga (philosophy) and kaupapa (way of doing) informing meetings and hui (so Te Ao Maori is active and analytical in powhiri, waiata, hui making); Development of the Niho Taniwha competency assessment model which enables discourses of social work that may enable Maori; Ensuring Maori panel membership in assessing Tauiwi in Bicultural practice; Ensuring bicultural responsibilities inform the Code of Ethics; Code of Ethics translated to Maori language (2008). (Nash, in Connolly& Harms 2009, p 369) Payne (2006) suggests that relationships represent certain ideologies about how societies should be, and the push for registration of social workers after 1999 (enabled by the momentum of key social work employers) suggested an ideology of a transformative profession open to speaking distinctly in informing current social policy (Payne, 2006), (Maharey, 1998). The establishment of a competency based membership process in the ANZASW (1990) created a form of voluntary registration (McNabb, 1997) in which social work accountability specified Te Tiriti based biculturalism, and proposed personal, structural, and societal empowerment through effecting changes in this social structure (ODonoghue,2003), (Blagdon, Taylor, Keall, 1994), (Walker, 1995). This
23
M.S.H.
transformation in biculturalism (see: Table 3) also conveyed dissonances about releasing power. Here the distinctions occur in the discourse development in terms of what discourses do rather than singularly what they describe. For example while people spoke of protection of the public, this became interpreted in the dominant State discourse linked to the State as source for Social Worker Registration. The traditional and modern State continued contribution within colonization cannot easily be reconciled with such protection of people (Roy, 2006). Table 3.1 Analysis and the positioning of people in relationship
Discourses informing SWRA (2003) intent for protection of the public 1. Accountability in relation to whanau, hapu, kin, church, welfare, community 2. S.W accountability as relationship to whanau, church, welfare, community 3. S.W mediating of power in helper role. 4. Workplace prescribes a social workers role, by task (therapeutic, social order). 5. The profession mediates that social order tension both in alignment with State policy, in its positioning of legitimacy on competency through relationship value of a Maori world view (Rangihau 1987, McNabb 1997, Durie 1995). 6. The social work profession ethics acknowledged racism and sought competency in core practice standards in its members, Maori as social worker or clients were creators of meaning and knowledge and sought to enabling a responsibility in which social justice sits in divergent protocols for representation-see Table 1 (transformative, from which therapeutic, social order modifying and disputing this) (Payne, 2006, ANZASW Code Ethics 2008). 7. Legislation for Registration applied to S.W lead by MPs, produces SWRA (2003).
From Monoculturalism to Biculturalism As discourse makes it possible to see the world it also constructs people (Foucault 1972). For example, the social work discourse in the 1990s shifted from being mono-cultural towards acknowledging distinction of Maori and finding partnership with that in seeking biculturalism. A key factor in this shift was the development within NZASW of competency assessment and the two caucus structure. As previously mentioned, the changes from NZASW to ANZASW and
24
M.S.H.
the shift to referencing the Treaty to Te Tiriti in the ANZASW policy, effected changes as a socially agreed representation of relationships (Payne, 1997). NZASW had begun a discourse on competency for social work in the 1980s, acknowledging opened spaces which specify Maori representation, and guidance for non Maori in working with Maori. In addition the NZASW was explicit about what a social worker demonstrated to practice safely (NZASW 1990). Beddoe & Randall (1994) noted the professional values drew from notions of individual and group and were informed by philosophy and sociological accounts of the relationship (Corrigan, 1999). Maori were seen as no longer sitting on the periphery but repositioned as central; the partnership in Te Tiriti was active and able to be evident; a living document (O Donoghue, 2003). Research work resulting from Puao Te Ata Tu (1986) and the formation of The Children Young Persons and their Families Act (1989) stipulated consultation with whanau, kin groups. The prescription of this consultation increased the accountability of social workers to Maori (C.Y.F. 1989). The Turangawaewae conference and the development of a Maori caucus within the NZASW by 1986 had challenged the presence of mono-cultural practices in the profession. The resulting greater recognition of Te Tiriti in the amended constitution of NZASW ensured that both decision-making and social work practice would be conducted in accordance with the articles contained in the Te Tiriti o Waitangi (NZASW, 1992: 9). This engagement with dilemmas is important to allow practitioners to recognize and develop their ethical ways of practice, of relating in power relationships (Jenkins, 2009). Some educators in social services acknowledge the engagement with difference prescribed clearly by Maori (Kahukura, 1991, p. 34); and also that engagement and redress requires transformative action in the social, economic and political struggle of Maori (Payne, 2006;, Mataira, 1995; Corrigan, 1999). Reflective of
25
M.S.H.
this, Maori education sites have begun to provide social work education and qualifications, and included in this transformation was the practice of sharing of stories which were embedded in this land, stories other than those based on the States authority on Te Tiriti (Jackson, 2010). The ANZASW Code of Ethics (2008) as a professional discourse named social justice as a value generalised to all social work and marked standards for professional workers consideration and action in their work, within the varieties of their context. Its dual focus of responding to specific needs of peoples and equally to inform society about injustice, generated a language peculiar to enabling bicultural accountability formed with Maori centrality (see: Table 1). However when the language is applied without strong Maori centrality (Durie, 1995) the call for registration for social workers, is motivated by a different meaning of bicultural tokenism, bicultural appropriate, and the debate as to whom the partners were: for example Maori and Crown or Maori and the later settlers (Smithers, 2007) (see: Table 3:1). Modernist notions of accountability and protection of the public as formed from economic rationalism and new managerialism in the new right ideology (see: Table 2 as assessment, models, codes) were now languages adopted which in turn positioned the profession to respond back to management. ANZASW itself sought to respond with notions of empowerment and antioppressive values to inform the SWR Bill (see: Table 3) (Corrigan, 1999).
Examining the development of social worker registration The registration discourse emerged originally as an ANZASW aspiration (at the Associations formation in 1964), which was put to rest in the late 1970s and 1980s, until it re-emerged in 1994. This occurred with a discussion paper at the
26
M.S.H.
request of the ANZASW and then progressed with some vigour from 1998 onwards gaining consensus with members, employers, community and Maori (Blagdon, Taylor, Keall, 1994, Curson, 1998). To define the professional identity by defining registration, ANZASW made submissions to the reform of Health Sector Occupation Regulation Statutes (1997) and described registration discourse as aligned to competency based assessments and measures (Curson, 1998). Voluntary registration and an inclusive nature to registration were discussed, with membership imagining active engagement by workers in their practice (Corrigan, 1999). Major employers such as Child Youth and Family, a legally mandated service, also supported registration. The Bill emerged from a consensus between the State and the professional body (Roy 2005, O Brien, 2009); social work registration was regulated.
Te Tiriti O Waitangi in the Social Worker Registration Journey 1998 -2001 The literature leading up to the Social Workers Registration Bill (2001) carries the continued discourses of both colonisation and decolonisation, with decolonisation the redress of colonisation (Laenui, 1999). While Te Tiriti as New Zealands founding document informed ANZASW bicultural practice, the Treaty was to be considered with all aspects of Pakeha interaction with Maori, and as a symbol of hope in a shared future (Durie, 1995a; Te Paa, 1998; Fleras & Spoonley, 1999). It was those social order views (Payne, 2006) with maximum state leverage of its citizens rights and services (in order for its efficient and continued functioning), that are evident in shaping the Bill and peoples (limited?) ability to influence discourses shaping the Act (Roy, 2005). The lead up to the SWR Bill (2001) was equally a period shaped by social service adaptation to new public sector regimes. This regime positioned human engagement as a commodity in which work is constructed as a series of tasks, and service delivery, orientated around technology, and determined by managerial approaches (Blagdon, et al, 1994)
27
M.S.H.
(Nash, 2009) (Payne, 2006). The task to convey the positions of Te Tiriti, social justice and human rights to the SWR Bill was to cross diverse value systems that position people and power distinctly. To consider these required the select committee hearing submissions on the Bill to agree to give significant weight to the Aotearoa social work tradition and the integrity of Maori (ODonoghue, 2003) (Curson, 1998) so to redress oppression and discrimination. The Social Services Select Committee was to act for the state legislature, to inform the Registration Act. Familiar with the processes of colonisation, some Maori viewed registration as devaluing existing Maori social work practice and the commitment to the Treaty (McNabb, 1997) (Curson, 1998). Others argued that registration and requiring formal academic study supported accountability in practice, where the State and its allies legitimize formal knowledge and practice to evidence a status of competency (Ministry Social Policy, May 2001) (MacDonald, 1995). An alternative option for evidencing competency by the reflective practitioner model (see: McNabb, 1997) would require a practitioners critique of the state, which is an intimidating prospect, where the state holds powerful allies, and enables the discourse of the SWR Bill (2001). This is problematic as the same worker is then directed to engage themselves with evidencing their legitimacy as (therapeutic, social control) safe practitioners, and to be registered (Payne, 2006). Transformative social work alternatives are not always consistent with these notions, as they critique social structures of power and knowledge, and seek the empowerment of oppressed people and the development of and distribution of contemporary knowledge for all (Hartman, 1992).
28
M.S.H.
In the state consultation for registration, The Ministry of Social Policy (MSP 2000), noted concerns about the devaluing of existing Maori social work practice (MSP, 2000, pg. 4); and that the registration process standardised skills, within a complex regulating environment reducing real partnership (Mintzberg, 1993). Following hui, the Ministry concluded that Te Tiriti should be the basis informing the constitution for the Registration Board, and that a separate registration body for Maori be available (MSP, 2000, p. 8), maintaining the importance of competency in Maori tikanga for Maori and non-Maori who work in Maori communities, with references also drawn with Puao Te Ata Tu 1986 (MSP, 2000, pg. 11). In summary, given the distinction regarding the proposed SWR Bill in a regulation function, and noticing it is likely to disadvantage Maori (MSP, 2000), the journey to social work registration remained shaped by forces of colonisation and decolonisation processes, and by forces commodifying social practice and social work views singularly (Laenui, 1999) (Cram, 2001), (Walsh-Tapiata, 1997) (Pihama, 1993 in Cram, 2001) (Smith, 2005) (Cook, 2008). The art of mediating requires accepting difference and requires social work to move beyond elevating compliance as a sole standard. Further accepting difference requires perception, then power by which to mediate how the state perceives the registration body as central in the protection and accountability matters towards its citizens (Blagdon, et al, 1994) (Cheyne, O'Brien, Belgrave, 2000). It also involves an acknowledgment of tradition in its capacity to mediate with peoples who hold differing notions to meaningful safe relationships. Difference and working with these remain critical for ongoing conversations (Smith, 2005) (Belich, 1996).
29
M.S.H.
Conclusion The objective of this literature review was to contextualise the study. This was achieved by locating it within ways of seeing the world. The initial review identified the discourse offered in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, its place within Aotearoa New Zealand in terms of informing social consciousness, law and social work. The second discourse discusses the development of the profession of social work within Aotearoa New Zealand, particularly informed by the postmodernist response shaping social work in post-industrial society (Parton, 1996 cited in Payne, 1997. The third discourse traces the placement of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in social work registration. While the literature highlights those discourses that will position social work either according to Te Tiriti discourse to inform a social consciousness of social work traditions or not, the following chapter conveys the researchers choice of methodology with the intent for voices to be identified in collective submission making to the SWR Bill (2002).
30
M.S.H.
Chapter Three
Research Methodologies
This chapter outlines the methods used in this research project. It explains documentary analysis as a methodology, the reason for choosing it, the particular data collection procedures used, and the process of analysis for comparing and contrasting the documentary data gathered with the Social Workers Registration Act (2003) itself. This is followed by discussion of the ethics and challenges of the research methodology. The conclusion finds that the documentary analysis method provided an appropriate way to explore the research question once the researchers assumptions about access to publicly available documents were overcome.
Documentary analysis Documentary analysis focuses on the location, categorisation, selection and analysis of documents (Bell, 2007) (Weber, 1985). This method relies on two interdependent features, the first being the researchers use of internal criticism to give a reliable explanation of the authors views within the selected documents and second, the documents importance and presence within the period under research. Documentary analysis also involves the consideration of what documents are included or not included, with the researcher explaining their choices along with the analysis framework informing their examination of the content (Bell, 2007). In this study the submissions were produced primarily to respond to the Social Workers Registration Bill (2001) in attempt to influence the content of the final Act. As the research process unfolded further questions concerning the voices held in the submissions and the way they informed the Act necessitated a consideration of the Select Committee context.
31
M.S.H.
Documentary analysis was chosen as it was deemed the best method for examining the research question of why Te Tiriti is not named in the SWRA (2003). This methodologys strength in terms of this research project was how it could be used to investigate and evidence 'what is lost during the policy making process. For example the methodology can be used to note 'voices' at point A and then track them at point B by noting their subsequent presence or absence. In essence, documentary analysis provides a means by which to check document for what they convey or do not. In this research this analysis explores further which voices are understood, are hidden and identifies the power plays. Power can be identified in documentary analysis recorded in everyday speech, in institutional practices, which is particularly important as they influence this research (Burr, 2003, Payne, 2006, Walsh Tapiata, 2009).
The recognition of voice in the data requires planning to inform the sourcing, selection of documents and sensitisation to what is lost as sometimes there is a hidden power relationship within peoples interactions (Payne 2006). The project is considered an informed activity. In this study, the submissions tangibly convey the submitters intent to influence the Select Committees determination (Winslade, 2002, Foucault, 1972, Walsh-Tapiata, 2009). By being sensitised to what is lost', this methodologys strength enables those written elements to be recognised and therefore heard. By applying this sensitisation of critique (Herman,2002 in Smithers 2007) and researching for Te Tiriti as a discourse to the documents researched, those indigenous tradition and 'other voices can be located: they can be heard using a key word search (Burr, 2003, Patton, 2002, Rangihau, 1987, Puao Te Ata Tu 1986).
In the process of documentary analysis there are always limitations in the location and analysis of any text (Weber, 1985). Ways of minimising such limitations
32
M.S.H.
include: a) the researcher identifies her values, and is critical of them throughout the process; b) an effort is made to place the documents within context of the original submitters before being interpreted; c) the researcher openly acknowledges her interest and bias in the study; and d) her intent that the submitter voices are not lost, guides the data analysis process.
Any methodology is shaped by the research question. Words and key concepts must be continually analysed by the researcher to ensure that their original meanings are retained. The researcher drew upon the literature to inform the construction of the question so as to locate its context within three points. One, the published academic work; secondly, the social work relationship to colonisation; thirdly, indigenous tradition.
Stages of documentary research
According to Bell (2007), the stages of documentary analysis involve moving from a general overview of the documents to a considered inquiry in which the collected documents form the raw data (Sheppard, 2005). The considered inquiry is then applied to the similarities and differences identified within the documents from which observations and conclusions are derived. The three types of analysis applied in this study are: content analysis (as in frequency of words of Te Tiriti), thematic analysis (as generalisation of meanings), and/or discourse analysis (as systematic creation of what is described). These analyses arise from drawing themes from the data and then applying a sensitising notion (ie. Lost Voices) in the examination for common content (termed content analysis) (Sheppard, 2005). This reductionist approach reduces the mass of the
33
M.S.H.
data by making judgments about key themes (thematic analysis) emerging from the data, and writing them up as common characteristics for that group. Care taken with exceptions also informed the researcher, this being a part of the responsibility to honour the writers voice and honour the systematic creation of discourses (Hartman, 1992). Having overviewed documentary analysis in general terms one now turns to its application in the present study.
Research Table 3.2 Stages of documentary research

Planning Sourcing and selection of documents; what is included and what is not. The nature of the sample selected requires explanation, and the location of units as data in the study's focus. Consideration needs be applied to content and bias in reporting (as in racial stereotyping) The recording of units within the sample (Appendices 1, 2, 3).
The units are placed in the context of the terms before being interpreted (this is important to the research credibility). The context includes consideration of boundaries around the project, budget, and the research question (analysis). Framed recommendations emerge.
The research procedures
The procedures used consisted of identifying a sample of documents and placing these documents in a context. Sourcing and accessing the documents chosen for analysis then followed.
34
M.S.H.
The sample
The sample of documents was drawn from the submissions made to the Social Services Select Committee in respect of the SWR Bill (2001). A decision was made early in the project to focus on a sample of the collective submissions in order to remain within the scope of the research project. The focus on the collective submissions also facilitated examination of the Select Committees handling of submissions. It became apparent that the collective submissions had been counted and considered as equal to a submission from an individual. Therefore the focus on examining collective submissions as data is a distinct consideration of validating those. The consideration of those submissions from Maori (see Appendix 1 - Submissions 5, 6, 12, 14, 28, 30) were not distinguished in kind from those of the Commercial Press. This example in Appendix 1 described access into the materials of Discipline Tribunals as primarily important (see, Appendix 1, Submission 1). The Bill is primarily about social work accountability as a profession. The profession shaped by social work relationship within therapeutic, transformational, and discourses concerned for social order at a meta level (Payne, 2006). The accountability of the profession sought to enable that of traditional Te Tiriti based vision of justice (Puao Te Ata Tu 1986); at times this accountability is also claimed as integral to generic social work (Corrigan, 1999). Such visions for justice require that significance in weighting should be afforded to Maori views of social justice, rather than the equalizing of Maori submissions with the Commercial Press interest as was seen.
The framing of these samples within context is then critical to the methodology (Weber, 1985) as well as understanding the submissions within this writers definitions. It is intended that this will distinguish the process and the way the
35
M.S.H.
findings are understood, from that which informed the SWRA (2003), to ensure that voices of the submission are recognised and acknowledged rather than being viewed as merely one submission amongst many.
Data identification and collection
The next stage was sourcing the documents, their collection, and the identification of the relevant sequences within them.
Sourcing Forty submissions were selected, photocopied and mailed by the Parliamentary Information Service as the researcher could not physically access Parliament. In addition to these forty, three other submissions were sourced off the Internet as publicly available material.
Collection The 'forty-three papers gathered were categorized and numbered. Related sheets were secured to each numbered submission. In this step the documents legitimacy was explored, in regard to whether they were collective or individual submissions.
Selection Ten submission speech papers were collated to fit with other master submissions which they were part of, and three removed being classified as individual submissions which fell outside the representative sample. The remaining thirty
36
M.S.H.
submissions were summarised, which added to the researchers knowledge. Such framing of the samples within context is critical to the methodology (Weber 1985) and seeking to understand the submissions from the writers perspective distinguished the process and the way the findings are understood [from the Select Committees process] (Appendix 1).
Next the material was scanned for key words related to Te Tiriti. The scanning for the sensitizing notion of Te Tiriti (1840) included looking for linking references to Te Tiriti. These can be found in contemporary discourses around naming research documents of Puao Te Ata Tu (1986) and Kahukura (1991), as well as in submissions. These were also located in the Select Committee notes and the Bills explanatory notes in reference to Maori. From these exercises the framed recommendations were produced.
The gathering of data added to the researchers knowledge by locating the voices, identifying what they said, and examining their influence on the resulting legislation. More questions occur as knowledge of the subject deepens in application of the sensitizing notion related to Te Tiriti, Puao Te Ata Tu (1986), Kahukura (1991) (Tosh 2002 in Bell, 2007 p 127). The process was recorded in a timeline (see Appendix 2). As the researcher I was mindful of leading the reader through the project in a meaningful manner. In leading the reader forward , the structure of this research links the reader to the key comparison and contrasts in the page layout (see Appendix 3 and Table 3.3).
Table 3.3 below summarizes the research procedure and illustrates how the process developed from identifying reference (or lack of) to Te Tiriti, to Puao Te Ata Tu (1986), Kahukura 1991, ANZASW Code of Ethics Bicultural Code, and support for (or lack of) social workers registration as a means of achieving safe
37
M.S.H.
practice.
Table 3. 3 Steps in the research procedure 1. From 43 papers originally collected, 30 were collective submissions and became the focus exercise following a primary analysis by scanning for references to The Treaty or Te Tiriti o Waitangi (see Appendix 1). 2. Data reconsidered in context of Te Tiriti gathered in from the submissions in reference to Puao Te Ata Tu (1986), Kahukura (1991) and ANZASW Code of Ethics Bicultural practice (Maori, Tangata whenua, etc) (see Appendix 2). 3. Consideration was given to the information the authors originally wanted to impart, such as support for the draft Bill, conditional support, or refusal (see Appendix 1 and 3). The authority of the writers was noted by ethnicity, gender, workplace, and profession in Appendices 1 and 3. 4. Steps 1-4 were then applied to the SWRA 2003. Primarily, analysis sought to locate the Treaty or Te Tiriti o Waitangi (See Appendix 2) 5. This was followed by a search for the location of Te Tiriti with reference to Puao Te Ata Tu, Kahukura, and the ANZASW Code of Ethics serving as a framework for analysis of what is said and not said. 6. The researcher then compared and contrasted data from the 30 submissions, the SWRA, context documents (e.g Select Committee notes, Explanatory Notes of the Governmental Bill) and the SWRA. Data was entered on Appendix 3. Data analysis within contexts
Analysis of word frequency and context enabled the study to develop (Bell 2007, Weber 1985, Walsh Tapiata, 2009). In the subsequent exercise of comparison and contrast between the submissions and the Act, the data was further framed,
38
M.S.H.
firstly in terms of the inclusion of material from the submissions in the Act, the Select Committee commentary and Governmental Bill notes. Secondly, in relation to a context through references to frequency of the words Te Tiriti (1840), Puao Te Ata Tu (1986), Kahakura (1991). The data analysis was extended to references to Maori, in order to be mindful of what the original writers had intended to convey: that Maori are people of the land; that the research recognises and responds to this. This form of listening and validation by the researcher was to ensure that she was sensitive to the methodology as a way to identify and examine the influence of voice (see: Table 3.4) (Winslade, 2002).
Research Table 3.4 Te Tiriti, Law and Lore
39
M.S.H.
Research Table 3.4 Te Tiriti, Law and Lore
40
M.S.H.
Context and bias The documents were examined for the information the authors had intended to convey specifically in relationship to Te Tiriti). That unwitting evidence did emerge in underlying positioning was unintentionally revealed by the language they used. In the absence of reference to Te Tiriti in the context of the Act, related material in the Select Committee recommendations and Government explanation was also considered (Bell, 2007). Appendices 1, 2 and 3 illustrate the processes used to make judgment about the key themes as well as common characteristics that produced points for the researcher to examine her assumptions, and thereby increase her knowledge. The credibility and rigor of the procedures was evident by the way that the researcher attempted to preserve and understand the submissions in their context (Patton, 2002). In addition, her use of an overt and explicit analytical framework derived from feminism and antiracist theory meant that the interpretative lenses applied to data were obvious and the analysis offered open to critique. (Patton, 2002). Overall, the procedures used in this study were responsive to word frequency and enabled understanding of power through discourse. The data was seen as discourse (Winslade & Monk, 2000, Drewery, 2005). The counting of documents as data offered a reliable context (Appendix 3 scoped this out for an easier visual impression for the reader). Consideration was given repeatedly to how this methodology was used and informed data choice and suitability, moving in a sense between the studys methodology, data collection, and content analysis for consistency to increase understanding of the research question. The methodology suited the researcher intention. This was not only to honour points of view yet also in seeking patterns and themes across stories and submissions. This was reasoned as a way in which to maintain a perspective where the research process gained voice as understood in the context of the making of
41
M.S.H.
meaning (Patton, 2002). Ethical Considerations A low risk application was submitted to the Massey University Human Ethics Committee, following a peer review process of the application. The study was determined to be of low ethical risk, because it was an analysis of publicly available documents and did not involve direct work with human participants. Other ethical matters considered were those applied to the intent for minimisation of harm and mindfulness of the student social worker and any potential or perceived conflict of interest in terms of her ANZASW role that are briefly discussed. To research the absence of perspective in the SWRA (2003) involved considering work from colleagues within the social work profession, and required being mindful of ones analysis and critique of relationships with members of the profession who had made submissions. Ideas cannot be independent of the characteristic social positions of the human beings who use them to communicate with and understand others (see: Table 3,4) (Payne, 1997). That said, the documentary analysis approach used worked with material created for public knowledge, and depersonalised the study to a degree by which it was possible to objectively work on the question(s) raised in the original research proposal. The researcher only analysed collective submissions, a decision that protected any individual being singled out for their views.
Challenges of Methodology There were two challenges the researcher dealt with during the course of the study. work.
42
Firstly the availability of documents and secondly, that not all
submissions were electronically available became challenges to the planned
M.S.H.
The researchers assumption that the documents were publicly available (due to being part of the law making process) was challenged, because their availability was not linked to accessibility, thereby challenging the researchers assumptions of availability, accessibility and public accountability. For example, to access paper copies of the submissions required the researcher literally to visit the Parliament Information Service in Wellington. A negotiated compromise was found, with the student required to cover all costs for copies of the documents to be released. When the researcher offered $40 randomly selected copies of the material were sent. Some submissions were electronically available for the researchers access to make up any shortfall. Therefore, this selection represent those available samples of collective submissions received by the select committee. The second challenge was that the researcher sought to ensure the credibility and rigor of the research. Focus for the researcher developed on awareness of preserving data, observing and identifying themes by noting exceptions and recording both the process and context of the analysis undertaken (Patton, 2002). As context informs analysis, it is acknowledged that another researcher may well arrive at different conclusions, due to differing individual interpretations of data. There is a subjective nature to both recognising ideas (Payne, 1997) and understanding how knowledge reflects important social forces, such as how power is used in social relations (Spender, 1985). The researchers capacity as both non Maori and as a student to form research, equally shaped the work (see: Table 3. 4).
Conclusion This chapter has described how the methodology was applied, why such methodology was chosen, the methodology with regard to the research question,
43
M.S.H.
as well as the practicalities of the methodology. The document analysis was applied to submissions to the Bill, and to the final Act itself.This chapter has also discussed the procedures used in selecting, sourcing and analyzing the submission, together with key sensitizing notions related to Te Tiriti.
The final stage of analysis involved comparing and contrasting the content of the submissions with the final SWRA. (2003). This critical analysis viewed Te Tiriti as knowledge, creation of knowledge is a form of power, understanding traditions of power for Maori beyond the Nation state are important considerations for social justice within the New Zealand tradition (O Donoghue, 2003). Analysis of processes by which knowledge from the Nation state, the submissions of both professionals and of Maori enables understanding of this major piece of social work legislation. These methods develop from the acknowledgment of world views as ways to recognize ways of thinking about knowledge. This is in order to be sensitive to ways integrity may diminish power relationships (Payne, 1997); what was seemingly lost from the legislation is further diminished in the many practices affected by the legislation. By the methodology developed here the researcher sought to give witness to submitters voices. By gathering detail the researcher evidenced the voices intent to influence the Act. Document analysis reveals the clear numbers of submitters references to Te Tiriti. While this chapter noted the limitations of document availability and the subjective nature of understanding power and loss, the chosen methodology served to identify and examine the influence of voice, and equally examine a critique of power relations. These understanding shape the subsequent results chapter.
44
M.S.H.
Chapter Four The Submission Voices
This chapter reports the results of the documentary analysis of the submissions made to the Social Service Select Committee on the SWR Bill (2001) by locating the voices of the collective submitters, and considering whether their voices were lost during the bill. The voices present within the submissions will be introduced first, followed by an analysis of themes found in the submissions. Then the official response to Te Tiriti and the Social Workers Registration Act (2003) will be considered with regard to some meanings and implications. Possible alternatives to this response will then be explored.
The Submitters Voices
Within the submissions studied, the writers identified themselves by their names, and by their workplace or profession. Appendix 1 details the submitters identity, and Appendix 2, 3 identifies the scope of some themes in the submissions. Within the group of writers who were identified by their workplace, variation of submissions included that of the Commercial Press Union (Appendix 1 Submission 1), student social workers (Submission 5), Maori women therapists (Submission 6), Mental Health providers (Submission 7), and The National Assembly for Peoples with Disabilities (Submission 22). Four groups of submitters located their identities through race and ethnicity, Maori as citizens and as of iwi/hapu (Spoonley, in Fleras & Spoonley, 1999),while others identified through gender. Ten submitters located their authority on the social work accountability in Aotearoa by acknowledging their regard for the Maori world and
45
M.S.H.
tradition (having named Puao Te Ata Tu 1986, Kahukura, 1991). See Table 4, as represented also in Appendix 3.
Submission Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 SWR Bill, S C SWR Bill, Ex Notes SWRA(2003) 1 Te Tiriti 20 Te Tiriti 6 Te Tiriti Refer TOW 2 Te Tiriti 1 Te Tiriti 4 Te Tiriti Ref 8 Te Tiriti 1 Te Tiriti 9 Te Tiriti 8 Te Tiriti 9 Te Tiriti 2 7 3 1 1 Te Te Te Te Te Tiriti Tiriti Tiriti Tiriti Tiriti Submission Writer w/ prof. as authority I as authority we, prof. we, prof. we, ethnicity Tangata whenua, Pacifica, women we we we we we we we prof. /Tangata whenua we we w/ prof. as authority we we we we we we I/ my office we we organization Roopu we Maori, roopu we Views S Support/likely to proceed S S Not support Not support S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S Not support S S Context Notes 0 0 0 0 Puao Te Ata Tu 0 0 0 0 Puao Te Ata Tu Kahukura Puao Te Ata Tu Kahukura Puao Te Ata Tu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Puao te ata tu Kahukura 0 0 Puao te ata tu Kahukura Kahukura 0 0 0 0 0
19 Te Tiriti 1 Te Tiriti 8 Te Tiriti
12 Ref Maori 18 Ref Maori 9 Ref Maori
Prof.=professions
46
M.S.H.
The submitters could be grouped by roles (see Appendix 1): four social work education providers, 13 social work professional groups (three with mental health specialisation), one student group, four social service agencies, three community advocates (including advocacy for peoples with disabilities, children, and those with mental health needs), one from Maori women therapist group, one representing a commercial press union, one representing early childhood education, one representing the National Council of Women, and one from the national Stopping Violence Service. As collective submitters their interest in the Bill generally endorsed registration (27/30 submitters describing registration as both :Standard setting in terms of quality in practice and including the qualifier of that registration having due regard to Te Tiriti (see Submission 7, Appendix 1). For example, members of the profession of social workers gave significance to registration being informed by relationships arising within Te Tiriti, informed by both reparation for past grievances, and as offering possibilities for that relationship (Appendix 1, Submissions 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, and 30). Writers who identify as tangata whenua, as iwi/hapu members refer to their peoples values informing their relationship to Treaty partnership (Appendix 1 Submission 5), naming the Registration Boards obligation to Maori, and to Treaty articles of Maori self determination (Appendix 2, see 2, 5, 15, 28). Writers also identified a potential disabling effect of registration on service users,
47
M.S.H.
where additional cost of registration may inhibit access to a registered social worker (Appendix 1 Submission 20). It is noted that registration was indeed being identified as a cost (rather than, for example, as an investment in accountability) indicating how economic systems interact within the shaping of professional registration (Payne, 2006). General themes of support are present in the submissions, but all submitters requested specific recommendations. Many specified that the Treaty inform the eventual Act and named examples of this informing in the traditions of Puao Te Ata Tu (1986), Kahukura (1991). Of the three submissions not supporting registration, two specifically named the Bills exclusion of Te Tiriti, as the reason for their opposition (Appendix 1, Submissions 5 & 28), (Appendix 2, b). The remaining submission suggested that registration would not address the problems that were purported to be remedied by the proposal. Specific cautions were noted in regards to the subjectivity of government, and the social workers professional association holding the capacity to potentially discriminate against Maori in the registration process (Appendix 1, Submission 6). Noteworthy is that concern was raised that registration if coupled with a monocultural bias (i.e. eurocentricity), would perpetuate a perceived personal, institutional and societal racism in New Zealand. One example of this was identified in the Children Young Persons and their Families service (CYFS) having failed their obligation to Maori under The Treaty principles (Appendix 1, Submission 2).
Significant numbers of these submissions (19 of the 30 submissions) explicitly sought to have Te Tiriti included in the Act, or given greater recognition within it (see Appendix 2, d & Appendix 3). Of these 19 submissions, seven named Te Tiriti in the context of Puao Te Ata Tu (1986). A further three submissions named
48
M.S.H.
Te Tiriti in the context of the document Kahukura (1991) as marking a key difference between social work in Aotearoa and that of overseas practice (see Appendix 3). A series of writers clearly stated that the Bills current form failed to represent Maori values as Treaty partners (Appendix 1, Submission 5), and that it did not fulfil its obligation to Maori, or to the Treaty articles of Maori self determination (Appendix 2, points 2, 5, 15, 28) see Appendix 1, Submissions 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30). The content of the submissions selected The submissions selected covered the writers notions of support (or not) for the proposed Act, and if supportive then which key points should inform the SWRA (2003). While the submissions selected named support for the registration of social workers (either willingly or as a fait accompli), every submission studied requested specific inclusions to enable the intent of the SWR Bill. A generalised pattern was identified in the submissions referencing Te Tiriti by name, or by related materials, in that each sought to align social work registration with Te Tiriti tradition as a source to inform that practice. (See Appendix 3). In 20 of the 30 submissions, Te Tiriti was named for inclusion in the proposed legislation, particularly in the context of not betraying indigenous social work tradition (Appendix 1, Sub. 10) (Appendix 2, pg.2, d). Of the submissions which specifically named Te Tiriti, seven referred to this in the context of Puao Te Ata Tu (1986), (Appendix 2, pg. 2, e), including one stating that to omit Te Tiriti in a Bill for social workers is incomprehensible (Appendix 1, Submission 5). Seven submissions named Te Tiriti within the transformative context of Kahukura 1991 (Appendix 2, pg. 2, f) with references that this inclusion would mark the key difference between social work in Aotearoa New Zealand and that in overseas jurisdictions (Appendix 3, Submission 10). These contexts distinguish their
49
M.S.H.
notions of Te Tiriti from that given by the Crown by drawing from the submitters practice and discourse of what Te Tiriti is, and where it is located in the framework of Aotearoa New Zealand (Jackson, 2010). Writers worked collectively for 30 submissions. Those writers identified as significant from practice or experience to inform the Act (Appendix 1). Of these, three submissions responded with an outright no to registration as a means to achieve the intent of the Act, as it would not decrease existing accountability issues, increase public confidence, or obtain an acceptance of culturally based qualifications (Summary of Submission). 27 submissions requested an explicit inclusion of Te Tiriti in the proposed Act (Appendix 3): specifying that to omit reference to the Treaty of Waitangi in a Bill for Social Workers appears incomprehensible (Appendix 1, Submission 5). By drawing from current practice in the social service industry (where for example, Health Board audits explicitly requires relationship to Te Tiriti), it was proposed that, likewise, Te Tiriti should be included in the Acts Purpose as well as being present throughout the Act itself (Appendix 1, Submission 21). The ANZASW submission explicitly argues that all people registered under the Act be required to have regards for, and act in a manner consistent with, the provisions and principles of Te Tiriti (Appendix 1, Submission 30). Explicit training in Te Tiriti was identified as a requirement (in seven submissions) and Te Tiriti based representation be required for members of the Social Work Registration Board. Some submitters described the Bill as a backward step which will further disadvantage Maori both as social workers and clients in its present form and will simply continue cultural practices of culturally incompetent Pakeha working with Maori (Submission 5, pg. 1, Appendix 1). That this is seen as a backward step ,described as the singularity with which the Crown applies Te Tiriti in practice (Jackson, 2010) appears to again shape how submitters were to be heard that is dismissive of Te Tiriti in the consultation
50
M.S.H.
process. The official response to the submitters voices by the Select Committee and Parliament Coverage of the Select Committees report and the remainder of the Acts passage follow. In sequence the researcher offers description of the associated parliamentary speeches with the proposed Act and the relation to Te Tiriti. This includes the minority Green Party view highlighted in Sue Bradfords speech in the Bills second reading. heard (Jackson, 2010). (C) SWRA No options however, other than the Crowns application of Te Tiriti appear to shape how the responses to the submitters were The Bills path through the legislation process is described here in (A) SWRB Select Committee Commentary: (B) SWR Bill and
Firstly, the Select Committees report on the Bill showed strong support for the legislation. The Select Committees response to the 37 submissions was in the form of a summary, which emphasised that 30 submissions had expressed general support for the Bill, and that strong support was given for the concept of registering social workers. The summary of submissions identified them as recognising that the Bill 'failed to confront the implications of the Treaty of Waitangi'. These specific concerns were then dealt with in the body of the substantive report (Summary of Submissions, 19th March 2002). That the report on the eligibility for registration of New Zealand qualified workers, notes that qualifications should include training in working with Maori (pg. 5) with specific reference to amending clauses 98, 99 (of the SWR Bill). These amendments refer to the needs of Maori as tangata whenua, and that the Board should appoint a representative of Maori (p 15). The Bill itself is described as containing clauses with specific reference to meeting the needs of Maori, where it
51
M.S.H.
is stated that it is not common for the Treaty of Waitangi to be included in statute; that where Te Tiriti is included (this involves physical and land based resources) the Treaty establishes a relationship between Crown and Maori. In contrast the proposed Bill ...'is a framework of standards for all social workers. The Treaty is therefore described as not related to the Bill as it is not about 'providing services, but rather about setting standards for individual social workers. Green Party member Sue Bradfords speeches at the first and second readings focus on two concerns (from Parliamentary debates, 2002). Ms Bradford identifies that her party strongly supports an overdue social work regulatory framework. The Green Partys also indicated its reservations in that the Bill lacks specific reference to Te Tiriti, and lacks reference to specific obligations of the Crown in terms of this relationship. Ms Bradford stated that due to groups such as ANZASWs commitment at the Bills late stages with reluctance regarding the omission of Te Titiri from the Bill, the Party felt it was unable to pursue the matter further without relevant community backing (Parliamentary debate,2002). References were noted of the Select Committee responding to provision for Maori as tangata whenua, distinct from response to Pacific Island people described as ethnicities, and that an advisory committee was to ensure the views of tangata whenua were made available. The SWR Bills explanatory note did not name Te Tiriti. The explanatory note (held in Clause 98 of Act) identified that the Board was to ensure an integral and ongoing priority for four references. These references argued for inclusion of Maori as tangata whenua (focusing on Maori aims and aspirations, appropriate involvement). There was however little subsequent direction for enacting the centralisation of this power sharing and that partnership was to be integral and ongoing priority in the SWR Act (2003). This lack of direction appeared to cloud
52
M.S.H.
further any intended focus. Mention of employment of Maori, and other views that the Tribunal has enough people who represent Maori, made six references in total. In the Bill itself fulfilling the focus on active enabling of tangata whenua, the Board was to specify inclusion of Maori representation (pg. 71) (Schedule 1, 41, 3,).This required that any Committees constituted would ensure the views of Maori (pg 84). Further focus was given in that the Board was to act as a good employer so recognising the aims and aspirations of Maori (Schedule 1, 50; 2,d notes), inclusive of the employment and involvement of Maori (Schedule 1, 3, pg. 87).This is recorded in twelve references. In summary, the Bill itself held six Te Tiriti references, and twelve references to Maori however apparently as outcomes. Importantly no analysis within the Bill process checked these accountability in their immediate application or indeed their wider ability. The wider ability of the intention for the SWR Act(2003) can be argued that this extended to reframe the tradition of the States centrality to one that may enable a Binational entity (for example, where by Maori citizenship and hapu, iwi membership mediate social meanings (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999)). Following the progression of the Bills path through the legislative process to the SWRA (2003), research indicates that while there were nine references to Maori, there were no references to Te Tiriti (Appendix 3). In the SWRA (2003), Te Tiriti was not named. However, in the Act the Board has named responsibility to Maori (9 references) (Part two, Section 6, c.1 (pg. 10), Section 7, a, 1(pg. 11)); Section 13, b, iv A (pg. 14) : competent to practice with Maori; (In Section 66, 3, b (pg. 42)) that it is desirable (verses essential?) for Maori to be represented on committee. Again, The Act names that the obligations to ensure the aims and aspirations are met in the relationship with Maori (Section 100, 1 (pg. 62)) are noted in three
53
M.S.H.
references but are not detailed in any power shift so enabling a partnership or relationship informed by Te Tiriti (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999). How the voices in the submissions were received
The research question(s) Lost Voices, Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003) locates themes in those submissions studied and the Treaty as central in social work traditions (Puao Te Ata Tu 1986). Te Tiriti languages how peoples may relate and be, within a Te Tiriti based society (ANZASW Code of Ethics 2008) (Spender, 1980). Submitters, not the Committee, noted that it is the sensitising notion in the stories embedded in practice around the words 'Te Tiriti' that are key, in that they dont just describe but perform (create) the relational principles whereby people are seen, recognised in relationships (Winslade, 2002) (Drewery, 2005) (Jackson, 2010) (see: Table 3.4 exploring different relationship traditions that inform distinct notions of Law and Lore). It is the discourse of Te Tiriti that is recognised by submitters as conveying powerful discourses, which are different notions to those sanctioned in the Crowns interpretation (Foucault, quoted by Winslade, 2002, Faye, 1993).
Themes 1. Two thirds of the 30 collective submissions, while supporting registration, qualified this by requesting recognition of Te Tiriti. 2. The Bills lack of regard to the reference to Te Tiriti was challenged by some submitters who stated it was a backward step further disadvantaging Maori, and simply that it enables a continuation of culturally incompetent Pakeha behaviour (Appendix 1, Submission 5). These themes were silenced. The significance of Te Tiriti in social service tradition was raised as informing both
54
M.S.H.
just and safe bicultural social work, and informed this tradition in which 'to see the world of registration'. That this was not conveyed reduces the mutually created relationship between social workers and the legislation, legislation and Te Tiriti, legislation and Maori, and legislation and the people of Te Tiriti. The potential of people as participants in conversations and frameworks that produce meaning in their lives has effectively been diminished. The Select Committee, in locating itself as almost passive by its criteria as standard setting, introduces another discourse and reduces its obligation of hearing the historical context of the submitters voices (Select Committee notes, March 2002). The proposal is that words clearly act upon people, and position people (Winslade, 2002, Webber Dreadon, 1999) and their professional identities. If words become reinscribed (the code of meaning of the word is altered) (Drewery, 2005) then the experience for submitters seemingly becomes an experience of subjugation. For example, social workers (and practices) are reformed as subjects; the discomfort of reformatting is part of the constituted effect within the regulation of social work discourse, affecting those participants (and practices), rendered now as non-participants in their own lives (Drewery, 2005, Walsh-Tapiata, 2009). This positioning does not provide any relational link for submitters whereby there is opportunity for reengagement as equals (Winslade, 2002) (Appendix 1 Submission 21). The submitters however had clearly named examples (to evidence their submissions points), such as Maori self-determination was to drive delivery of all processes, and was to be evident in the Boards make up. There appeared no space for inclusivity (Corrigan, 1999). Rather the centralisation assumed in the States position with Registration centres its knowledge as the measure, and repositions other ways of knowing (as that of the relational world established by Te Tiriti) outside its centrality. How can workers now locate new spaces for engagement (Drewery, 2005, Seed Pihana, 2005)?
55
M.S.H.
Analysis
Positioning, in a discursive analysis, identifies that words position people into certain power relationships (Harre & Davies, in Winslade, 2002); that power is not singularly allocated but rather is mediated from multiple points in a relationship. For example, the SWRA (2003) implicitly involves inequalities (Foucault, 1972). For myself as the social worker and researcher I found power in words when they connect to experience. By reference to the words Te Tiriti as a way of framing, and structuring relationships for me this conveys what and how the profession and those using social services can expect equality in their experience there as based on acknowledging and respecting the difference of Maori and non Maori (Consedine & Consedine, 2005). This mediates the social work experience so as to shape and modify social workers in that tradition or conceptual framework (Denzin, 1978 in Patton, 2002, Walsh Tapiata, 2009). For example, Submission 20 requires the Tribunal to be fully responsive to Maori process (Appendix 1), yet it is someone most likely from out side specific hapu who acts confirming registration to hapu members Hence, the discourse is already shaped around positioning that fails to respect diversity in hapu relationships, and those between iwi Maori. The words additionally create positioning, and un-critiqued, remain that by which we speak ourselves into existence (Davies in Winslade, 2002). The positioning evident in use of the language of ethnicity invites positioning of participants as Paheka and iwi (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999). This is represented in one collective submission (Appendix 1 Submission 5).
As the researcher I considered how critique may apply in the context in which historical notions and the future possibilities interaction upon contemporary discourses. In this critique the process of submissions to the Bill were examined and do reflect a history of non Maori State failure to respond to that sensitising
56
M.S.H.
proffered in Te Tiriti. The State by ignoring the depth of diversity continue to implement disadvantage upon Maori world views. These also are actions that mitigate recognition and understanding of the duality of colonisation and decolonisation as positioning occurring in everyday life (Jackson, 2010, WebberDreadon, 1999, Laenui, 1999). The process here fails the submissions of Maori as tangata whenua. The resultant SWR Bill submission process silences that tradition by responding instead to the notions of social control. In specifically seeking the regulation and control of social work the art and science of caring for people is reframed. Social work is in danger of becoming commodified under the terms only of the nation state ( Payne, 2006)(Roy 2006).
Of all work submitted 19 submissions asked for recognition of Te Tiriti in the Bill. Yet the final Bill, within recognition of specifics which inform Maori self determination, this being whanau, hapu and iwi ignores Maori self determination. By whanau, hapu, iwi not specifically being represented in the make up of the Select Committee (Appendix 1, Submission 2, 5, 28) further voices were silenced in the shaping their own professional reality through the Bills provisions. The effect of this has been the implication of a personal and collective silencing in terms of the structural power of the Board and SWRA (2003). This practice then undermines the social justice notions of the profession (ANZASW Principles 4.1, 4.2, 2008). If unaddressed the implications are the continued undermining of Maori, of relationship (Jackson, 2009), simultaneously the professions professional integrity.
Feminism and anti-racist theories propose that by the privileged assumption of themselves as the norm (Spender, 1985), (Waldegrave & Tamasene, in Munford & Nash, 1994), the resultant silencing perpetrates a subjugated people who are now identified through the Bills redistribution of power in registered and
57
M.S.H.
unregistered workers. Secondly, while this legislation produces a registration status, the legislation is aligned and its process justified by authority assumed by its association to the State. From this alliance social work membership (another alliance) is generated by that group value of compliance evidenced by obedience. That generation for example, occurs where registered social workers are preferred candidates in governmental employment. Further, by framing the SWR Bill without sensitisation to the submitters concerns, no space exists to raise questions to distinguish how the policy actually impacts on peoples (Burr, 2003). A third silencing is reducing workers ability to critique the power structures evident in their own lives. It is in raising the lost voices through the data that further choices may be enabled to counter such exclusion (Winslade, 2002).
The implications for the Social Workers Registration Act (2003), meanings, alternative possibilities. The SWR Bill was to inform what is accountable social work. That commitment when not aligned substantively within Te Tiriti traditions strays from social equity within that tradition. The ability of state registered social workers to speak then into notions of decolonizing power appears strained as they need to speak against the State and its Act which gives them their professional status. The Bill emerged within the macro context of reformat of political, economic, moral and cultural interplays in a Nation State (Fleras and Spoonley, 1999). A notion of The singular State, its peoples and structures, similarly seeks to reformat the resurgence in notions of Biculturalism and Binationalism by subjugating ways of speaking. This actively reproduces and perpetuates relationships of unequal power (Hartman, 1992) (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999) (Roy,
58
M.S.H.
2006). A consideration of these implications and meanings are now discussed. Submitters were silenced. By the words of submitters not longer contributing to the development of bills and Acts so words become devoid of contributing to community and professional meaning. A fundamental divide occurs in the maintenance of democracy by ordinary people. This has significant links to discourses of democracy. The very erosion of democracy occurs world wide through the Nation State positioning its population in widespread compliance to its powers across many neo liberal economies (Roy, 2006).There are significant changes occurring in political process. That the tradition of submission writing informing a bill shaping accountable social work is rendered silenced could appear incomprehensible if wider shifts in civil society, law, free trade where not also being reframed by global forces of greed and control. Significant in all of these situation is the realignment of traditions informing meaning making in peoples lives, and this informing social equity and social justice (Appendix 1, Submission 5)). Because of this the subjugation of knowledge, and the unfair positioning of the social worker, diminishes the logical link between the personal as political. This subjugation then links to the practice of social work in disempowered and marginalised communities, where the oppressed learn to claim their own voices and experiences as places of knowing and integrity is key to their political transformation (Hartman, 1992) (Payne, 2006). As Registration reposition Maori social workers to values other than their own (Webber Dreadon, 1999), so workers may disassociate from the traditions of their own practice (and voice). Those splits may be made evident in politicised members, (who do not subjugate their knowing) moving away from the current professional bodies (ANZASW, SWR Board)in order to enact their accountability in a way commensurate with an original intent of the SWRA (2003).
59
M.S.H.
The SWR Bill, the SWRA (2003), and Te Tiriti informing ANZASW Code of Practice contravene each other, rendering different meanings to terms such as social worker (Winslade, 2002). This, while unaffected by submitters (who suggest the Bill as mindless in not acknowledging Maori), parallels the colonisers own mindlessness (in its own assumption of centrality). The implications of this process being unaddressed in the unchanged SWRA (2003) continues to colonise because it name standards. Many are outside of hapu, iwi(WebberDreadon 1999). The term ,social workers shifts and becomes reformatted around registeredsocial work. It is a small shift to sense its being consumed and positioned into a master culture (Ryder, 2009), (Appendix 1, Submission 5). A further discussion will explore these shift from words and meanings. The formation of this Act produces unequal relationships of power. Even though the Board is supposed to represent Maori, its determining the means of exchange and negotiation of opportunity, can drive the repositioning of oneself, Maori, women. If one is not aligned with the State, then one can be re-positioned as the other, and therein not central in shaping registration. This reflects the power inequity of patriarchy discussed in our introduction. By studying the submissions and the formation of the SWRA (2003), the inherent positionings are worthy of notice. One example is the validating in witness bearing by peoples in their own experience, and how opportunity for this impacts on defining them (Hartman, 1992). Social work draws on a fierce tradition yet in the face of the registration much is silenced I cant say who I am unless you agree Im real (Baraka cited in Hartman, 1992, pg. 483). In this way, Fleras & Spoonley argue shared language enables recognition of anothers positioning. The language of Maori carries assumption and positions within it that are distinct. Here iwi, hapu, expression
60
M.S.H.
can be drawn to inform the speaker and listener (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999). The positioning that lies currently in being registered in relationship to relational and inter-subjective traditions (Ryde, 2009) remains an important subject in further study.
Some of the meanings evident from the findings
In summary, the assumptions unchecked within the SWRA (2003) hold the potential to reform or produce social workers whom see the Act as 'setting the standards for individual social workers'. Such an unexamined attitude replicates the Act by not naming Te Tiriti within the social work tradition (Appendix 1, Sub 10). In spite of making submissions, Social Workers own traditions in practice are silenced by being re defined and categorized by the State and SWRA (2003) as powerful experts (Hartman, 1992), again acts to endorse the States centrality in the SWRA (2003).
Secondly, the SWRA (2003), in not responding to the concerns raised reproduces the invisibility of submission writers. Such submission writers include Maori, professionals, and women and in this the Act contributes to both enabling patriarchy as systematic victimization and violence against women though the public -private divide, women whom also significantly form the majority of workers (Roy, 2006). The recognition of violence is particularly significant to those affected however instead here there is no process for such recognition to occur. The States notion of accountability, suggests it is informed by patriarchal values where feminine is not the active proprietary. This as a discourse acts then to reposition the women submitters as passive objects (rendered non human), to be acted upon, yet equally whose compliance is required for State order and
61
M.S.H.
standard setting (Cook, 2008). This meaning assumes further significance when considering that workers own subjugation of self is required to embed this order. Mirroring these pressures to comply, the Social work profession equally require members to language their practices in notions of the economic system (the file, the interview, the assessment), which are made normal in the professions own competency practice (Winslade, 2002).
The initial shift in meaning to standard setting is distinct from those previous discussions around registration where meaning was formed through relationship and tradition (as in Hui making). The shift to reframing notions impacts on submitters democratic participation (Spender, 1980; Ryde, 2009). This shift, if unaddressed, will maintain peoples in ways of speaking that do not name Te Tiriti traditions. The Registration Boards suggestion that the Act serves (only) an administrative process reflects attitudes which themselves deny the power communicated by structures in maintaining disadvantage (Roy, 2006). This may provide significant focus for further PhD study.
Through analysis of the SWRA (2003), the language used illuminates how people are positioned by different ways of speaking. The example here of ...'desirable for Maori to be represented' (Appendix 2, pg. 3, SWRA (2003)) would center the State and propose Maori as decentered. It actively shifts the fundamentals of selfdetermination recognized in Te Tiriti Articles Two and Three, and notions positioning the Tribunal (Appendix 1, Submission 15, 20, 21). Silencing is also endorsed in the dissonance between what is said and what is done. For example, the SWR Bill requires social work practitioners considered analysis when working in non Maori processes with Maori, yet the SWR Bill process itself would appear to produce diminished opportunity for that Maori process (Appendix 1, Submission 20) (Drewery, 2005), (Durie, 2003), (SWR Bill Website). Arguably
62
M.S.H.
these actions demonstrate a covert agenda that disables participation and prevents a shared meaning in registration, in spite of submissions being called for (Ryde, 2009). This is worthy of further study including resources within Hansards so to seek the detailed contribution and further knowledge into this field of the Nation State, professionals involved in liberation, and wellbeing of peoples. In discourses where there is minimal conflict, the discourse forms new options, and enables relationship building. The listener may check they can hear the speaker (to hear involves being open to other as distinct and yet equal to self; considering the language or framework utilized, the separate and shared meanings and timeframes)(Winslade, 2002;Webber-Dreadon,1999). Ongoing demonstration of that hearing (and by association the validation of the speaker) is usual by encouraging, by rephrasing back to clarify, by making evident the hearing in clarifying detailed points, and responding in the same format as the speaker, mindful of positioning. This accountability enables the parties to develop a shared story as a vehicle for going forward together, with which to counter the magnitude and intensity of the presence of any oppression (Roy, 2006). In discourse occurring in conflicted relations, people utilize language to assume positions to legitimise their own entitlements as in I am a Registered Social Worker! (Winslade, 2002).
Alternative possibilities
The previous analysis as to how discourse shapes thinking, particularly when associated with domination and accumulation (where the colonised are appropriated into the culture of the master), illuminates that this dominating power play does not enable the partnership that seeks careful accountability for the
63
M.S.H.
vulnerable seeking social care. This dominating power can only fail in any recognition of intrinsic differences and so fail to respect high level of care for peoples (Foucault, 1972; Everitt, Hardiker, Littlewood & Mullender, 1992; Ryde, 2009; Spender, 1980).
The research question(s) Lost Voices, Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003) states the research focus. The themes in those submissions studied where the Treaty predominates as a centrality in the social work tradition (Puao Te Ata Tu 1986). Te Tiriti languages how peoples may relate and be, enabling a Te Tiriti based society (ANZASW Code of Ethics, 2008) (Spender, 1980). Submitters indicate that the words 'Te Tiriti' dont just describe but perform (create) the relational principles to people and land and therefore also the relational principles between people (Winslade, 2002) (Drewery, 2005) (see: Table 3.4 Law and Lore). There are powerful discourses and traditions that emerged outside covert intentions of systematic shaping of the social workers and social control (Winslade, 2002), (Faye, 1993) (ANZASW Code of Ethics 2008) (Payne, 2006). These are clearly detailed by the submitters requested that tradition offered in Te Tiriti be honoured. Summary and conclusion
In summary, this chapter discussed who the submitters were and their interest in the Bill, what they said, how that was received, and the implications of this for the social work registration process, as identified in the submissions. This identification sought to raise the voices of submitters, and to offer the reader knowledge about how what they said was received. Many of the submitters voices sought an ethically informed tradition which acknowledged the context of power. This is enabling of Maori interest and rangatiratanga thence justice in Aotearoa (Kahukura 1991). This differs to the manner in which the submitters
64
M.S.H.
were heard and in the response of the Select Committee as that of standard setting prescribed for the SWRA (2003). How the SWRA (2003) may modify the social in social work, the conceptual traditions informed by Te Tiriti and how social workers will recognise their own meaning and experiences for social equity in this country, will remain critical in the recommendation chapter that will follow (Denzin, 1978 in Patton, 2002, pg. 278), (Burr, 2003; Walsh-Tapiata, 2009; Drewery, 2005) (see: Table 3.4).
65
M.S.H.
Chapter Five: Conclusion
This chapter reviews the research objectives, questions and findings. Conclusions derived from a summary of the key findings follow a discussion of the implications as they pertain to social work. Recommendations and suggestions are explored together with some personal reflections.
The review of the research objectives, question, methodology and findings This report sought to locate how the voices in the collective submissions contributed to the presence of Te Tiriti o Waitangi within the SWRA (2003). The research question enabled the focus on the final version of SWRA (2003), in comparison with the submissions. That the research title sought the sensitising notions to bicultural treaty based relationships was informed by tradition; specifically that tradition around accountability through relationships in social practice (ANZASW Code of Ethics, 2008) (Kahukura, 1991). For the choice of methodology to be inclusive of, and sensitive to those variations in definitions of biculturalism (bicultural treaty based relationships) within varied cultural and political contexts proved challenging. The research objectives, question and methodology sought to enable the submitters regard for Te Tiriti to inform the SWRA (2003) within the context of the rights and responsibilities of all New Zealanders (this forming symbolic biculturalism as defined by Herbert (in Smithers, 2007)).
The methodology for the study drew on the analysis tools of feminist and antiracist theory, which were applied in a process of document analysis (as these
66
M.S.H.
theories seek to give voice to what is minimised or lost through gender or ethnicity, consistent with the research objectives). Documentary analysis provides a means by which to check that voices are heard, understood by not being hidden. This approach allows identification of the power plays which occur in everyday speech and in institutional practices, which is particularly important as they influence the research (Burr, 2003, Payne, 2006, Walsh Tapiata, 2009). Through everyday interactions particularly through the engagement with Maori interest and rangatiratanga as prescribed clearly by Maori, that social equity and justice is rechecked and negotiated (Kahukura, 1991, p. 34).The vigor for that engagement and redress requires transformative action in the social, economic and political struggle of Maori, and critique analysis of both social advocates and Social workers (Payne, 2006), Mataira, 1995,Corrigan, 2000).
The researcher initially had sought access to all the 37 submissions as publicly available material. Payment of photocopy fees enabled access to the bulk of submissions with the remainder sourced from the Internet. In this study the submissions were reviewed primarily to respond to the Social Workers Registration Bill (SWR Bill 2001) to influence the content of the final Act. As the research process unfolded further questions concerning the voices held in the submissions and the way they had been mis-understood and so informed the Act necessitated additional consideration of the documents of the Select Committee context. Those submissions actively included were collective submissions (30). This selection of submissions was to enable the wider expression of submitters views in the research. The submission documents were reviewed for (A) (which referenced Te Tiriti), these where then sought in the data in the SWRA (2003) (B) this search for Te Tiriti allowed that the submitters voices could be evidenced prior to the SWR Bill (2001) and review of resulting SWRA (2003) also occurred for notification and reference towards Te Tiriti.
67
M.S.H.
It is through theories that seek to make such as antiracism and feminism visible, that the research findings may enable the recognition of differences advantaging or excluding of voices inherently bound to the meaning making and healing of peoples (Pinkola-Estes, 1992). Theories applied to the discursive analysis also helped describe the theoretical and practical findings, and implications around subjugation noted in the study.
Key findings Five themes were found from the submissions: 1-Twenty-seven of 30 submitters requested the SWRA (2003) include Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 2-The State by its involvement in the SWRA (2003) defined its role as standard setting only, rather than enabling democratic participation or an identification of the partnership between Maori and the Crown (Herbert in Smithers, 2007) by regard for, and acting in a manner consistent with, the provisions and principles of Te Tiriti (Appendix 1, Submission 30). 3-This approach served to reposition social workers as citizens and to reduce their ability to be accountable as professional social workers. 4-Maori interest and rangatiratanga as tangata whenua appear redefined by the legislation. 5-With the imposition of the Act as standard setting only, closing the capacity to be responsive to people as women, hapu, iwi, is diminished, rather they are acted upon in ways that may diminish identity and equally diminish the opportunity to engage in the applied knowledge they carry. This diminishes opportunity for bicultural partnership as a treaty based
68
M.S.H.
relationship with people, the land, and Te Tiriti.
The findings showed that the submitters regard for Te Tiriti was not carried into the SWRA (2003). The Act as a discourse arguably in turn diminishes mana of Maori, and women practitioners. Amongst social workers it is women whom form the mass number of practitioners. The unique formation of self, voice and identity for women may be implicated being acted upon by the State through the Act. An analysis of the social and political implications of these five themes and discourses showed even between the Crown (as State) the context of structural biculturalism becomes limited without strong Maori involvement (Herbert in Smithers, 2007; Durie, 1995). For example, an analysis of the Act reveals that the State and western norms are positioned to be absolutes for all to comply with. This analysis is informed by the imposition of a generalised approach irrespective of how diverse experience, interest of gender, ethnicity may inform understanding as an emerging truth between people (Ryde, 2009) (Pinkola Estes 1992). Words have meaning when we can connect them to our experiences as people. Through access to words meaning may be formed for ones experience (so informing ones integrity).This notion of integrity and associated accountability is subsequent or concurrently occurring between oneself and other peoples (Drewery, 2005). For the submitters meaning to inform how submissions are heard, the Select Committee is required to acknowledge the world views of the submitters. Then the enabling of the submission making context in that biculturalism also occurs as an expression of rights to differences (Herbert in Smithers 2007). Arguably the Committee own world view rendered difference as indistinguishable when everything is white on white (Ryde, 2009) (Appendix 1, 2, 3).
69
M.S.H.
The research found that the SWRA (2003) process positions peoples by limiting the inclusion of their experience through submissions. A credible approach to registration (possibly just for non Maori) based on Maori approaches and needs, as prescribed clearly by Maori (Kahukura, 1991, p. 34). This limited inclusion does not require any transformative action in the social, economic and political struggle of Maori (Payne, 2006, Mataira, 1995, (Corrigan, 2000) as the reconstituted structural relationship of the Committee with iwi, hapu arguably occurred in a single culture manner that the Select committee members determined and controlled. Thus this is not enabling distinct, neither separation nor sameness participation by Maori submitters, and reduces democratic access to the Act for any submitters (Ryde, 2009). The submitters, both Maori and non Maori, held specific expectations which when failed may lead to the experience of becoming meager, anxious, conflicted and disillusioned, being unsure and unsafe personally and in practice (Durie, 1995). It is within a patriarchal order that women and peoples non white become rendered silenced (Spender 1980)
This reshaping of social work and what is seen as safe and accountable in social work, fails to represent its majority workers whom are women who form the larger numbers of social workers. For the Act to not accept their practice wisdom and academic knowledge in the submissions fails them and the traditions for healing and meaning they carry (Walsh-Tapiata, 2009 Pinkolas Estes, 1992). For women to be rendered lost to their voices, in this way, is to reposition them in their ability to be authentic to their own truth and so to produce ones life and affect others from ones practice and profession. Such positioning is described as to not matter; to lose ones humanity (Drewery, 2005). These critical subjugations are brought about by the power negotiated in legislation and then normalised in every day use of language. These subjugations are in turn further endorsed by media and carry far reaching effects on the well-being of others (Roy, 2005). The silencing of women in the wider society is replicated and
70
M.S.H.
appears to be normalised through the reasoning utilised by the Act and the Committee. While language (for example the language of psychology) influences women and Maori social work tools and practices (Ryde, 2009; Winslade & Monk, 2000), the SWRA (2003) as a language, now shifts (or arguably reduces) the ground for bicultural Treaty based relationships by women, and with whanau, hapu. The production of loss, numbing, the death of dreaming can be what this mean to individuals pillaged of their expression (Roy, 2005). What might have been? If informed by relationship within the tradition, then a SWRA (2003) may have formed through the valuing of peoples stories, their differences and these inform accountable social work (O Donoghue, 2007). That the Act assumed to standard set only negates relationship with Maori, negates regard for and actions consist with Te Tiriti, and negates womens participation in shaping their profession.
This research analysis indicates how certain 'representations of events or persons are being achieved by a process which has implications to desecrate tradition in memory. These findings show that privileging the SWRA (2003) is to demonstrate that the absolute self-determination inherent in Maori is reduced. Arguably this is to reduce mana (God given gift, integrity authority, prestige, influence) (Burr, 2003; Drewery, 2005 O Donoghue, 2007). Through analysis of the Act the results demonstrate how Maori, and Maori and non Maori workers have become constituted through the SWRA (2003) discourse to relationships whereby they are positioned within a controlling structure outside their own authenticity, and so are asked to rationalize, transpose, ignore, and inhibit Te Tiriti (Faye, 1993). The SWR Act (2003) and its implications therefore become normalised by ongoing State endorsement and unquestioning regards through everyday words and the daily deeds occurring in social service agencies.
71
M.S.H.
Implications of the lost voices for social work registration, the social work profession and social work practice in Aotearoa New Zealand
Key implications are that social workers are less able to be open to the revival of the practice or memory of what may be suppressed knowledge, and therefore are rendered differently able by the SWRA (2003) in relation to their traditions. Hartman (1992), & ODonoghue, (2007) call for social workers to be open to expertise, to participate with peoples in the revival of suppressed knowledge and call to re-imagine the social work profession in terms of the way in which it regulates who is a professional Social worker (ODonoghue 2007,pg.1). To not do so implies that those submitters and their knowledge are indeed repositioned by values very different from the tradition informing their work. This has implications. One implication is that social workers as submitters may become lost to a critical part of their tradition by the process developing the SWR Act. That many of the submitters invited the development of the SWR Act(2003) within knowledge established in Te Tiriti marks their critical awareness of ways informing the indigenous traditions and of social work in Aotearoa. That Te Tiriti informs the governance structure alone could produce the re imagined Act as a civic partnership (a structural biculturalism) between State, profession, and iwi. The invitation that this would equally inform regulatory authority constitution and decision making processes as being Te Tiriti based could have ongoing consequences to meaning and social equity for Maori and all New Zealanders (ODonoghue, 2007; Herbert in Smithers, 2007). With the understanding of discourses as practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak (Winslade, 2002), the research demonstrates that
72
M.S.H.
the discourses silenced submitters calling for Te Tiriti and this knowledge was not to inform the Act. At that time of the SWR Act (2003) there was a drive in legislative bodies of government to remove reference to Te Tiriti from State legislation. The analysis suggest that within the SWRA (2003) (as a standard setting), there is no place whereby registering becomes mana enhancing or enabled within those equally important traditions of social work supervision; employment, performance management, professional membership, and social workers completion of study as illustrating competency and fitness (O Donoghue, 2007). Currently the creation of the social work registration is arguably narrow. It leaves any real accountability to the individual to act within their integrity. The SWR Act (2003), but does not assume the social workers competence but develops from a notion drawn on in education theory, as the empty vessel pedagogy. O Donoghue (2007) advocates re-imagining registration that enables applicants to claim agentic power, to use questions, both purposeful and political to deconstruct oppressive narratives. Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)? as a 'externalizing question' allows the critique of persons from problem. To not to confuse the two, can also liberalize narratives (White, & Epston, 1990). From this study, I would argue language as a social activity is, in being articulated, potentially carrying age-old colonial logic in New Zealand which negatively impacts on Maori, relationships principles and the value of respect (Connolly, 2005). The current unchallenged SWRA (2003) language remains under examined so is more likely to perpetuate Maori subordination and womens subordination, and gains legitimacy in being structurally endorsed in legislation (Spender, 1985). The insight then, gained from examining the way language positions people may bring the oppressive narratives to consciousness. This
73
M.S.H.
consciousness may engender challenges to the replication of colonisation as a constantly reproducing force, alive in any un-critiqued legal processes (Laenui, 1999), and in any process where strong Maori participation is not present (Durie 1995). While social work practitioners need to pay attention to theories informing them, the State is a powerful endorser of those whom have the power and are authorized to know, and their 'knowledge' is afforded privilege, (Everiit, Hardiker, Littlewood, & Mullender,1992, pg. 49, citing Worrall, 1990, pg. 7). Uncritiqued, the social work profession merely reinforces traditional boundaries as a helping compliant profession. The discipline or profession, may redress such by its tradition located in its bicultural statement for a Te Tiriti based society (Mohan, 2005; Ryde, 2009)(ANZASW 2008) . Social Work Registration as part of a wider process, both reinforces and accompanies embedded discourses maintaining eurocentric control (Foucault,1972; Laenui, 1999). It would appear implicit in the research on lost voices and SWR Act (2003) that social workers both as citizens and professionals, are conscious of practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak. The submitters claimed that Te Tiriti should inform the SWRA (2003), (Winslade, 2002).
Inferences drawn from the findings
The inferences are twofold. In the study findings, the submission process and the Act were positioned in a New Zealand constitutional practice that allows government to regulate and control the democratic participation in a legislative outcome (for example the SWRA (2003)). In this climate, regulation and control
74
M.S.H.
enabled a process whereby the State prescribe to social workers ;this is a way of speaking that was not consistent with the ground roots origin of social advocacy by the people towards a oppressive Nation State (Cheyne et al, 2005). These inferences will be now discussed.
To begin, initially this government regulation and control occurred through the Select Committee, which sought submissions on the SWR Bill (2001) and subsequently described its role as standard setting only. This informed the committees work with submissions by diminishing their reference to a treaty, positioning any reference as only related to land. While the Bill itself is described as containing clauses with specific reference to meeting the needs of Maori, the writers of the Bill stated that it is not common for the Treaty of Waitangi to be included in statute; that where Te Tiriti is included (and this involves physical and land based resources) the Treaty establishes a relationship between Crown and Maori.(Notes to SWR Bill). In contrast the proposed Bill has now been repositioned as a framework of standards for all social workers. The Treaty is therefore described by the writers of the Bill as not relevant to the Bill as it is not about 'providing services. This Bill was rather about setting standards for (all) individual social workers. This rationale demonstrates a managerial discourse (one possibly tempered by risk evasion focus) which has been evident in social service funding and delivery over the past years. A similar discourse is evident in the Committee acting to regulate the reduced risk by applying the regulation of workers. This regulation and control approach enabled a process to prescribe a definition of accountability onto social workers. As a way of speaking this approach was not consistent with the profession whom encourage within their own art and science the ongoing reflective practice on empowerment and encouraging increased knowledge in Maori culture and Te Tiriti (Smithers, 2007). Nor is that way of speaking
75
M.S.H.
consistent with generally accepted principles of open democracy participation in legislation formation (Cheyne et al, 2005). That the language of State managerialism interacted within the professional body ANZASW itself probably also did assist that positioning of social workers as being outer to the center of their own authentic, and to degrees as non participants in the production of their lives (personal communication 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010). The way State legislative processes themselves are positioned may render them unable to serve peoples diversity but only offer a generalized approach which itself fails to respect distinct traditions and values of integrity and human liberation (Cheynne et al 2005). The presence of a generalised standard setting applied to people without consideration of their relationship values and integrity also shifted the ground wherein there are bicultural treaty based relationships. The Associations Code (ANZASW, 2008) seeks differently to contribute toward relationship building within a Te Tiriti based society (White, 1991, cited in Drewery, 2005). The traditions of Te Tiriti carry echoes of whenever Te Tiriti had been used before in a larger social discourse. This historical context also signifies various way of responding based upon that knowing and context. Responses to this regulatory authority might include that a social worker may act by being silent. This response may also result from being rendered voiceless as a result of an external authority, such as the SWRA (2003) ( Patton, 2002, pg. 7). To promote silencing, however, is not consistent with the professions Code of Ethics (ANZASW 2008) and its promotion of the value of self-determination and social justice. To deconstruct discourse requires a consideration of language and cultural safety. That the Crown may require a cloak of legitimacy conferred by Te Tiriti,
76
M.S.H.
is something Maori do not require. It is the Crown, as the State, that significantly leads in the SWRA (2003). Alternatively are evident in a Maori led SWR Act. Here whanau, hapu, iwi Maori shape the accountability of social workers within cultural values of relationship, traditions, and therein place focus on a specific notion of a bicultural Pakeha social worker(Jackson, 2010). Would this address generalised notions of undefined bicultural appropriateness which again fail to respect peoples by the ill-defined accountabilities (Smithers 2007; Drewery, 2005; Ryde, 2009; Durie 1995; Herbert in Smithers, 2007)? This positioning and silencing along with the way social workers may take up subjectivity within the discourse process that SWRA (2003) makes available, leads to further questions outside the brief of this study.
What this means for Social Work. Social workers Code of ethics (ANZASW Code 2008) describe professionals being accountable for their practice. This research, sought to appreciate this accountability as shaped through the formation of the SWRA (2003). One appreciation is that the Act as a creation re positioned Maori self determination and that of womens practice authenticity. The reflective practice made possible by the research opportunity and approach assists to illuminate the current positioning of the profession, the SWRA (2003) and the shifting of ground around bicultural Treaty based relationships (Everiit, Hardiker, Littlewood, & Mullender, 1992, pg. 49). Each point is addressed as follows: While many submitters expressed their wish for Te Tiriti to inform the SWRA (2003), it can be argued that as this was not included diminished the tradition of the profession and of just social work. For workers to notice, give expression of what they notice, and act to limit the accountability of the SWRA (2003) as a form
77
M.S.H.
of their own professional accountability offers spaces to redress their silencing. While the delivery of social justice may lie beyond the reach of the State, as socialist feminists argue, the invitation to develop robust partnerships, relationship principles that draw in historical context, care for each other that remain potential sources for current meaning making as to even being involved, and questioning the State and its accountability for social working in Aotearoa (Jackson, 2010). In making explicit the principles that inform Aotearoa social work, within the objectives of the professional association ANZASW toward a Te Tiriti based society, that, then the potentiality for social workers accountability is identified (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999; Davies, Flemmen, Gannon, Laws, & Watson, 2002; Mohan, 2005). What part of this discourse can the profession proceed with? Social work is concerned with enabling relationships in order to promote social justice. This may require workers with the ability to interact in a given situation between several bodies of knowledge, relationships, and attributes in relationship with tangata whenua (ANZASW Code of Ethics, 2008). Enabling social workers in the wider context of a situation requires engendering the professions commitment to see themselves more than compliant or just workers, but to work as advocates to shift power. These duplicate approaches call for mindfulness of subjugation and colonisation, mindfulness of opportunities for enabling understanding of Te Tiriti as a discourse of power relationships. These power relationships are evident already in Maori authority in non-governmental sector, community groups, churches (Armstrong, 2010).
The personal reflection
The reflections of the researcher on this journey often were personally

78
M.S.H.
overwhelming, and the practical obstacles at times appeared insurmountable. It was as the researchers consciousness developed in the context of her involvement in the study and as the data was gathered, that then this enabled a growing understanding. For example, as a social worker the research process offered valuable opportunity to be mindful of the invisibility of any woman in social work in a time where workers report they feel growing dis-connection to their own profession (personal communication, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010). There appears a correlation between workers experiences and the research documents analysis of subjugation and violence. Subjugation on multiple levels that are identified here may inform a future PhD to identify and develop these themes further.
The writer struggled also with the lengthy research journey as honoring this process of research required extensive literature reviewing and detailing, more than was originally anticipated. Parallel to this there was much to be done by the writer to both recognise, and then to claim a space to speak from. The raising to consciousness came with recognition of pain for the writer as a woman, and also as someone for whom significant support and time were required to write clearly. I found there were no keepers of the truth rather that the reality of things emerged from out of relationship bringing different aspects together. Even if these are dismissed as only words, they echo the tradition formed by peoples on this land. By standing within landscape and ancestors then one can claim a deeper act of seeing, and of accountability.
79
M.S.H.
Conclusion and recommendation:
In conclusion the study examines the collective submission to the SWR Act (2003) and the relationship to the formed SWRA (2003). The research offers an opportunity for the reader to more fully understand language and relationships of power that serve the maintenance of social work, of social inequalities and continued oppression (Pihama, 1993, in Cram, 2001). The key issue examined in this research is the exclusion of the submitters concerns in the SWRA (2003). Through this research there is an opportunity to support social workers to notice those absences. This invitation speaks back against any normalization of the subjugation of the submitters voices.
Social work informed by Te Tiriti makes it possible to see the world in certain ways (Burr, 2003; Puao Te Ata Tu 1986) and from this seeing to participate in forming identity and accountability within traditions valued in Aotearoa. Here, with the world opened in this way, it is possible for the negotiation of power relationships to occur in three ways. Firstly, structurally between Maori and the Crown; Secondly in a tradition of bicultural partnerships with others in society where respectful inquiry recognises Maori; Thirdly in symbolic biculturalism about making space for each other, rather than prescribing to others. Implicit within these three notions is the fourth of material biculturalism. A reimagined SWRA (2003) could respond in partnerships informed by Te Tiriti to redress historical grievance as part of accountability (Herbert in Smithers, 2007) providing opportunity for differing notions of voices, to mediate a way forward. Rather than to be singularly held accountable by the imposition of an Act upon
80
M.S.H.
them, or subjugated by its language (Sampson, 2003, in Drewery, 2005), workers may re-imagine responding in the Te Tiriti informed tradition respectful of the power in those words. Dismissed as only words; yet as Te Tiriti o Waitangi they mark a tradition that when within, one can claim to see.
81
M.S.H.
APPENDIX 1. The Collation of Data from Submissions. List of submitters and initial scope of their data Submission 1: Commercial Press Union Supports Bill Theme: Openness. Support clause 77 for hearing around Social workers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal to be held in public; advocates that it is fundamental that the public has ability to follow and understand the work of the Tribunal. CPU as place of authority-gender, culture not named. Submission 2: Family Start Invercargill Support framed as given it is 'likely to proceed' - Two Treaty reference Theme: 'the Bill satisfies 'who's' needs? The work offers an analysis of Bill decreasing service delivery or accountability issues or increasing public confidence. Perpetuates CYF as mono cultural agency and 'does not undertake its obligations to Maori under the Treaty'. 'I ' as place of authority. Submission 3: Social Workers Mental Health Social Work Canterbury DHB Support Bill -One Treaty reference Theme focus on establishing Regulation framework for Registration of Social Workers, and protection and safety of the public; to ensure social workers competent to practice. References professional definition and references Ti Tiriti O Waitangi; 'its centrality to social work practice in New Zealand should be incorporated in the Bill'. 'We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named. Submission 4: Social workers Mental Health Services Auckland DHB Supports Registration and intent of the Bill-Four Treaty references. Theme honoring the Treaty must be an explicit goal demonstrated in representation, consistent with the Crown, National and DHB mental health policy, the social work professional body (ANZASW) (Presentation note 2.0). Submission 5: Students, Te Tari Matauranga Maori Manakau Institute of Technology. Do not support- eight references to the Treaty. Theme does not support bill in present form due to absence of the Treaty wishes to implementation of articles in very clause, and the Treaty being reflected in the make up of the Select Committee looking at the Bill. 'We' Maori, Pacifica, Pakeha as place of authority-gender, not named
82
M.S.H.
Submission 6: Tu Tama Wahine O Taranaki Family Therapy center. Does not support Theme in general not support registration of social workers; that this Bill does not have impact on the problems Registration proposes to address. The work names that the government and professional associations are not objective and hold capacity to discriminate against Maori. Acknowledged dominance give to culture of Europeans and need to recognize Maori, Tangata Pacifica and European. Authority of writing from a tangata whenua womens group. Submission 7: Te korowai Aroha Mental Health providers, Auckland. Supports Registration-one reference to Treaty. Theme agrees that mandated registration of social workers is to protect and ensure best practice. ANZASW definition of Social work be adopted and links to promotion of ANZASW promotion of social work standards and competencies inclusive of the profession ensuring social work in New Zealand is conducted with regard due to Te Tiriti O Waitangi. We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named Submission 8: Aotearoa World Organisations for Early Childhood Education (O.M.E.P). Supports Registration Themes focus on the registration of social work and well being of children and families. Regulation is seen as providing a standard of terms in quality of practice, and most appropriate support be provided. We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named Submission 9: Leaders of Social Workers in DHBS, in New Zealand. Supports proposal of Registration-Themes are around the seeking for protection safety of members of public, improving quality of social work services, structure fitness and competency of social worker to practice. This acknowledges the focus on social workers not the profession, social work needs defining, fails to mandate registration. Submission written from We' as authority-gender, culture not named Submission 10: Health Waikato, Social Work Service Supports registration-nine references to Treaty Themes safe effective delivery to clients and families, social work within complex transactions of people and their environment, notes need to acknowledge indigenous social work, tradition offered by ANZASW in Code of Ethics, link social work education, competent practice in accord to Treaty. Puao Te Ata Tu, Kahukura documents named. Written from 'We' as authority-gender, culture not named.
83
M.S.H.
Submission 11: New Zealand Associations of Social Work Educators Support for Registration -eight references to the Treaty. Themes noted support yet required references to resources and social work, links to Treaty and to Social work ethics (ANZASW). Noted the relationship in indigenous social work tradition present in Puao Te Ata Tu and need to align social work courses and education with such landmark documents as Puao Te Ata Tu and Kahukura. 'We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named. Submission 12: Waikato Branch & Waikato Roopu ANZASW. Supports Registration as to enhance well being of all whom use social work services- nine references to Treaty. Themes recognizing economic and social policies role in reducing disparities for the community, indigenous social work tradition present in Puao Te Ata Tu, need for organizational support and roles of education, training, and supervision. Named need to reference both Treaty and social work tradition in ANZASW. Roopu named as co writers of submission. 'We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named. Submission 13: Presbyterian Support Service Centre Central Supports reasoning for public safety Themes are that a conditions for Board in concern for the mechanism for good performance and the measures to ensure accessible adequate supply of social workers. 'We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named. Submission 14: ANZASW Canterbury Branch Support intent of the Registration framework -two references to Treaty. Themes acknowledge wider scope of social work (as to influence Policy) and the risk of proposed legislation not inclusive of interest of all; seeks needs of clients and concerns of professions for timely effective culturally safe work. Names a percentage of branch are acknowledged as tangata whenua, an authority which informs submission. Submission 15: Waitama DHB Social Workers Supports registration -seven references to Treaty. Themes public protection most important reason for registration, providers of social work expected to honor Treaty and the Treaty centrality on provision and delivery of services. Notes need for Treaty obligations in Board Complaints committee. 'We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named.
84
M.S.H.
Submission 16: Pacific Health Social Work Service, Mental Health Eastern BOP Supports legislation ensures social work competency-three Treaty references. Themes identified are the Treaty as foundation for social work practice are acknowledged, linking to the Code of Ethics ANZASW. 'We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named. Submission 17: Barnardos Supports legislation ensures social work accountability-One Treaty reference. Themes names effects poor unregulated social work supports ANZASW submission names definition of social work needed for purpose of registration, supports ANZASW competency process. Submission written from authority of workplace Barnardos as place of authoritygender, culture not named. Submission 18: National Council of Women of New Zealand Supports registration as a requirement for social work practice-one reference to Treaty. Themes recommend user group inform advocacy training, request specific inclusion of Treaty emphasis adequate fluency in English. We' as place of authority-gender not culture named. Submission 19: North Shore Branch ANZASW Supports desirability of social worker to be registered. Themes fitness of person, academic qualification, qualities and attributes in pre registration period, police check, involvement of peoples of varied cultures, client focus. 'We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named. Submission 20: National Network Of Stopping Violence Services Supports bill with aim those employed by CYF assessed as compliant and registerThemes supportive of Social Workers registration board, acknowledges Complaint and Discipline Tribunal. Names Tribunal be fully responsive to Maori process names potential of Bill to stigmatize those people able to receive registered social work or non registered social work and notes erodes networks which are fundamental to society. Names that the State, in being supportive of whanau, hapu, is as a (significant) way to support its members. 'We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named. Submission 21: Te Kaiawhina Ahumahi Supports purpose of the Act - nineteen references to Treaty . Themes are of need for acknowledging Treaty, tangata whenua, practices of two
85
M.S.H.
partners; of the tino rangatiratanga self determination of Maori to drive delivery of all processes. Social Service industry has explicit audit requirement relating to Te Tiriti, hence it is proposed in Purpose and then be present throughout the Act . Names links to social work defined by IFSW and ANZASW parallel model of government and open recognition of the Treaty 'We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named. Submission 22: National Assembly of People with Disabilities Supports bill to benefit social work profession Themes supports bill for those required to use Social work services, acknowledges mechanics to add accountability for social workers, sees disability safety as core cultural safety. 'We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named. Submission 23: Counties Manakau DHB Social Workers. Supports with clauses Treaty referenced one Themes links Social work to ANZASW, IFSW definition and code of ethics, requests Treaty Rep on member of Board, Tribunal. Adds notions of supervised practice, the law includes the professional body of social workers. 'We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named. Submission 24: Commissioner for Children R McClay Supports BillThemes comments on requirement for registration, membership of the Registration Board, and the Complaint procedure. 'I' and 'my office' as places of authority, gender, culture not named. Submission 25: Staff Communities and Families Study University of Otago Supports registration properly implemented and controlled-Treaty referenced eight times. Themes related to Treaty identified in word search in context of Puao Te Ata Tu, and education in Kahukura document. Social Work practices need be free of inappropriate managerial or political influence. Names Code of ethics ANZASW linking of social work education qualification and educational institutes, recognition in-law for social work profession, and the notion of supervised practice. 'We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named. Submission 26: Social workers Lakes DHB Supports registrationThemes supportive of the protection of public compulsory registration and that the scrutiny around fitness and competency of social work should happen. All trained social workers are required to register.
86
M.S.H.
'We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named Submission 27: N.Z Plunket Society Inc. Supports intent of the billThemes notes disempowerment for social work parallels disempowerment experienced by clients and need for specific training. Supports registrationThemes support protection of public compulsory registration and that the scrutiny around fitness and competency of social work should happen. All trained social workers recommended as should be required to be registered. Own society as place of authority-gender, culture not named. Submission 28: Waikato Roopu ANZASW Not Supportive of BillThemes names social work practice based on the Treaty and the social work Registration Act excludes Treaty, promotes mono cultural Crown dominated system of registration not recognizing Treaty, Puao Te Ata Tu, and Kahukura document. Names Registration Board and complaints Committee membership not consistent with Treaty so not adequate protect Maori self-determination, Driven by economic and political expediency. Not refer to social work practice or education in New Zealand. Written from Roopu, as a place of authority, (gender not named). Submission 29: International Association of Schools of Social Work Supports Bill with concerns-one reference made to the Treaty. Themes supports submission made by NZASWE, aligns overseas study and qualifications, query voluntary nature of registration, request alignment with key Social features such as relationship with Treaty. Kahukura document named. Supports registration-'We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named. Submission 30: ANZASW Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers. Supports legislation for public protection - twenty references to Treaty'. Themes raised are inadequate references to Treaty and requests recognition of this in composition, structures, processes of registration Board and Act. ANZASW names all people registered under the Act be required to have regards for and act in a manner consistent with provision and principles of Te Tiriti. Supports registration-Themes supports protection of public compulsory registration and that the scrutiny around fitness and competency of social work should happen. All trained social workers are recommended as should be required to be registered. Names Maori, Maori caucus and roopu as place of authority-gender not named.
87
M.S.H.
APPENDIX 2: Data collection and analysis; working within
the methodology and the research development across time.
Submission, Select Committee commentary , Government commentary to the Bill, and The Social Workers Registration Act (SWRA) 2003. Timeline and development of Research. June collection, collation, scope for data. 1-Gather submissions, and the Act and categorize the gathered submissions 2-Numbered in sequence each submission as gathered 3-Review context of each 5-Separated submissions made by individuals (10); Remove submissions not fitting submission criteria; collate presentation notes given with submissions so Collective submissions from 30 for the research project here. Label documents as to naming Te Tiriti or Treaty of Waitangi as sensitising notion. The July Analysis Analysis of data re Te Tiriti in submissions, additional note of context regarding the naming ofPuao Te Ata Tu (1986), Kahukura (1991) documents. Note taken of authority (location) of submission writers by profession by iwi hapu whanau by gender Analysis of parts and of relationship of this, to parts; who are the Lost voices? Who are lost? Does 'lost ' mean repositioned by larger social structures? Examination of 'Lost' from what; is this identity, agency (one or a group of peoples ability to choose to act)? Consideration of macro system on the documents examined. In the Select Committee process the Collective submission were given as much value as those written by individuals, the submissions written by professional were valued as that of the Commercial Press Union (Sub one), the submission from Maori social workers were given no significance in value to influence the Bill. The application of the sensitising notion held in Te Tiriti allowed this to be valued in submissions. Comparison was then applied to the Act, and subsequently other documents (Select Committee commentary and explanatory notes for the Government bill leading to the Act).
88
M.S.H.
Findings: What is there? a) Thirty collectively made submissions See Submission, named and key theme in Appendix1- which lists each submission reference to Treaty, and key themes. b) Three say outright No to Registration c) Twenty-seven address Registration as necessary or au fait accompli but requested specific recommendations in the eventual Act (Appendices Three) Reflection for analysis; considering against the layers of discourses of others create much of what is available for people to say, to resist creates identity more than conceding. Moments of refusal are crucial to human identity development (Winslade 2002). d) Specific recommendation in twenty of thirty were they named Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti) as significant to be included for the legislation, so as not to betray the indigenous social work tradition in Aotearoa (example Submission 10 , pg 2,Health Waikato-see Appendix 1). e) Of the nineteen, seven named Te Tiriti in context of Puao te Ata Tu (1986). They named that to omit reference to The Treaty in a bill for Social Workers is incomprehensible (described in Submission 5, Students -Te Tari Maturanga Maori, Manukau, Appendix One). f) Of the seven, three name Ti Tiriti in context of Kahukura (1991) as marking a key difference between Aotearoa New Zealand and overseas social work (Submission 10, Appendix 3). Findings: What is missing? g) The Bill was named as seems a backward step and will further disadvantage Maori both as social workers and clients in its present form it will simply continue cultural practices of culturally incompetent Pakeha working with Maori (Submission 5 pg. 1, Appendix 1). h) Of thirty submissions, writers of four submissions (sub) located their comments with locating themselves: Sub 5 names Maori, Pacifica, Pakeha as place from which to write Sub 6 names Tangata Whenua Social Services Women group Sub 12 introduces Roopu of Waikato as place from which to write Sub 14 introduces 14% percentage of membership as tangata whenua Sub 28 introduces Roopu of Waikato as place to write. (Appendix1).
89
M.S.H.
Gender is named in only one Submission (Sub. 6), which names its organisation developed from initiative of Maori women. As social worker this analysis may inform 'Lost Voices', in lost from what? Findings: What might have been? By reflecting the content data obtained in the submissions, through a contrasting and compared to the SWRA (2003) orientation to the notions held in Te Tiriti appeared initially unworkable given the Act did not name Te Tiriti. Examination was then applied to related sensitising notions as Puao Te Ata Tu (1986), Kahukura (1991), Maori. Social Workers Registration Act (2003). June sort and separated SWRB Select committee commentary, remove Hansard Debate as not fitting the document criteria for this methodology; collate Act, Committee Commentary, SWR bill as context to examine SWRA (2003). This was informed by Patton (2002) whom describes the value in organising the complexity of the experience made available by sensitising concepts within the setting in which they occur, (Patton, 2002, pg 279). Findings: What is there? Analysis of SWRA (2003) data re Te Tiriti by note of context named in references to Puao Te Ata Tu (1986), Kahukura (1991) and extended to reference to Maori, tangata whenua, as no Te Tiriti references available n the Act itself. The following details the data in (A) SWRA in context of (B) SWR Bill and (C) SWRB Select Committee Commentary: A) SWRA the document did not name Te Tiriti What was there : In SWRA, the Board has named responsibility to Maori (9 references). -Part two, section 6,c. 1 (pg 10), sect 7,a, 1(pg 11) Section 13, b, iv A (page 14) each : competent to practice with Maori,. -Section 66, 3, b (pg 42) desirable for Maori to be represented on committee. -Section 100, 1 (pg 62) obligations of the Board in relationship to Maori to ensure aims and aspirations, needs for involvement. This forms 3 references. -Sect 117 c, 1 (pg 67) Suitability of certain people, on Tribunal -Schedule one 2, iv (pg 86) the Board representative of Maori.
90
M.S.H.
B) SWR Bill and explanatory note from Government to the Bill, did not name Te Tiriti In seeking a context the following was noted -Explanatory note held in pg. 27, (clause 98) of Act Board ensure integral and ongoing priorities four references regarding Maori as tangata whenua (aims and aspirations, appropriate involvement , employment of Maori, and other views. -pg 30 (Clause 115 Act) that Tribunal has enough people who represent Maori -pg 38(clause 147) Board has representation of Maori. (6 references in total) SWR Bill -The Bill itself, Part 6, (pg 50),Sect 98,title, (a) aims and aspiration of Maori, involvement of Maori as tangata whenua, employment requirements of Maori (98,c). - Part 6 Pg 50, Section 99; mechanism for obtaining the view of Maori (99,a). 6 references in regards Maori - Page 56, Section 115,c, suitability of appointments to Board 'enough peoples representing Maori.1 reference Maori -Schedule 1, 2 b; notes the Board has representation Maori (pg 71). -Schedule 1, 41 3, notes the Committees constituted to ensure views of Maori (pg 84). -Schedule 1, 50; 2, d notes the Board as good employer recognizes aims and aspirations of Maori, employment and involvement of Maori (3 on pg 87). References re Maori: 12 total references. C) SWRB Social Services Committee commentary names Te Tiriti 6 times It is through the social services committee commentary are 6 referenced to Te Tiriti and 12 named references to Maori; See: Part 2, 6,c 1 (pg 7) -1 Part2, 7, c 1(pg 8)-1 Part 2, 13, (1), b, iv, A (pg 11)-1 Part 4, 64, 2A b (pg38)-1 Part 6, 98 title, (a), (c) (pg 58)-4 struck out Part 6, 99 title, (a) (pg 58)-2 struck out Part 6, 98, title, (1), (2) (pg 59) -3 Part 6, 115, (c), (i) pg 65)-1 Schedule 1, 2, 2 (b), (iv)(pg82)-1 Schedule 1, 41(3) (pg 95)-1 struck out Schedule 1, 50 2(d), (i),(ii),(iii)(pg 98)-3
91
M.S.H.
What is not there? Te Tiriti not named in Bill, Act. There are references to Te Tiriti is named in Select Committee Commentary Noted that the location of the Bill or Select Committee membership does not name those participants either by their profession, by iwi hapu whanau, by gender. That in the Act, or Bill, or Select Committee there is no location of authority of the Submission writers by either ethnicity, gender, or any authority /weighing afforded professional experience. It is noted overused sensitising concepts can become desensitising (Patton, 2002, pg. 279). By reference to a graphic layout of findings the research becomes identified clearly; see Appendix 3. Findings: What might have been? By comparison and contrasting through noting the data available in the submissions and in the Act and the sensitising possible through Te Tiriti as a sensitising notion the voices lost in the process in forming the important legislation for the State Registration of Social Workers is considered. Consideration is given in the narrative examining the discursive positioning offered in the language utilised through the context of the Select Committee commentary and the Bill. Puao Te Ata Tu (1986) clearly sets out why Maori need to be involved in the provision of social services at all levels (Submission 5, pg 1,Appendices Three). Social work profession clearly name members commitment to a Te Tiriti based society (ANZASW Code 2008). From this context the framed recommendations and related implications emerging from the research are detailed.
92
M.S.H.
APPENDIX 3 Comparison and contrast of documents

Submission Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 SWR Bill, S C SWR Bill, Ex Notes SWRA(2003) 1 Te Tiriti 20 Te Tiriti 6 Te Tiriti Refer TOW 2 Te Tiriti 1 Te Tiriti 4 Te Tiriti Ref 8 Te Tiriti 1 Te Tiriti 9 Te Tiriti 8 Te Tiriti 9 Te Tiriti 2 7 3 1 1 Te Te Te Te Te Tiriti Tiriti Tiriti Tiriti Tiriti Submission Writer w/ prof. as authority I as authority we, prof. we, prof. we, ethnicity Tangata whenua, Pacifica, women We We We We We We We Prof. /Tangata whenua We We w/ prof. as authority We We We We We We I/ my office We We organization Roopu We Maori, Roopu We Views S Support/likely to proceed S S Not support Not support S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S Not support S S Context Notes 0 0 0 0 Puao Te Ata Tu 0 0 0 0 Puao Te Ata Tu Kahukura Puao Te Ata Tu Kahukura Puao Te Ata Tu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Puao te ata tu Kahukura 0 0 Puao te ata tu Kahukura Kahukura 0 0 0 0 0
19 Te Tiriti 1 Te Tiriti 8 Te Tiriti
12 Ref Maori 18 Ref Maori 9 Ref Maori
Prof. (refers to Professions).
93
M.S.H.
Glossary of Terms Discourse: this refers to ways of speaking about how the world should be and that reflects interwoven sets of power relationships; Discourse systematically forms the objects of which they speak (Drewery 2005, Winslade 2002). Agency: people who participate in conversations that produce meanings of their lives are in agentive positions, have agency (Drewery 2005). Colonisation: colonisation informs speech where one merely speaks as the dominant discourses permit (Samson 2003 in Drewery 2005). Positioning theory: Positioning occurs in everyday speech, reduces the person drawing on their own words rather discourse position one. This may be resisted or accepted; these reflect the power play of larger discourses that privilege some and subjugate others. Positioning theory and discourse analysis: using an analysis of ways of speaking to or of someone, combined positioning theory, one can see how in language people are constituted through discourse to relationships by different ways of speaking (Drewery 2005). Power: has multiple definitions and those used here are: 1) New Zealands social structure is maintained by system of power relationships between people and the organization of economics (finances), shared opinions (politics), shared values (culture) (Shannon 2002). 2) Power as recognizing ones presence (Wagner D., 1999 cited in Patton 2002). 3) Power as created in discourse, where words actively create, and also position people so when people stopped accepting then they shift structures.
94
M.S.H.
4) Foucault (in Winslade 2002) suggests power is constructed in discourse and is about producing people not only repressing them. Repression occurs around margins of everyday activities where power in language, in discourse (such as the SWRA produces the social worker person). Social worker: the term is formed within culture, and its contemporary construction is drawn from missionaries helping the deserving poor focusing on isolated immigrant men, unmarried women and their children. Curiously Maori whanau embodied this role and had originally provided food, resources, and shelter adequate to ensure survival of early settlers (Durie, 2003); Today the term usually refers to some one employed in the role of working to assist with an understanding of relationships both introspective, individual, collective, and environmental. Ethics may inform the role of supporting self-determination, protection from harm, social responsibility in which social justice sits, and in Aotearoa a commitment to a Te Tiriti based society (ANZASW Code Ethics 2008). The term of State Registered Social Workers are those workers registered on the SWRA log and meeting the requirement of the Act. Subjective relativity is the forming of meaning or reality within ones own words not to be an object with reality subscribed in others words. Part of subjective reality is while it is informed by the subject also it can form with others and respectful inquiry assists the development of shared meaning in relationships that are not colonising (Drewery 2005).
95
M.S.H.
References
Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers Incorporated, (2008). Code of Ethics, Revised, Dunedin. Armstrong, M. (2010). We did not cede our sovereignty; Joan Cook Memorial Waitangi Day Essay. Whangarei, Network Waitangi. Beddoe, L. & Randall, H. (1994). The New Zealand Association of Social Workers: The Professional Response to a Decade of Change. In Munford, R., & Nash, M. S ocial Work in Action, pg 21-36. Palmerston North, Dunsmore Press. Belich, J. (1996). Making Peoples; A History of New Zealanders. From Polynesian settlement to the end of the Nineteenth Century. Auckland, Penguin Books. Bell, J. (2007). Doing your Research Project: a guide for first time researchers in education, health and social sciences. 4th Edition. Open University Press, England. Blagdon, J., Taylor, M. & Keall, B. (1994). Social Workers Registration, Social Work Review VI (4), pp 24-25. Burr, V. (2003). Social Constructionism. 2nd Edition. USA Canada Routledge Publisher Cheyne, C., O'Brien, M. & Belgrave, M. (2000). Social Policy in Aotearoa New Zealand; A Critical Introduction, 3rd Edition. Melbourne, Oxford University Press. Connolly, M. (2005). New Zealand Social Work-Contexts and Practice. Melbourne, Oxford University Press. Connolly, M., Harms, L. (Eds.) (2009).Social Work Contexts and Practice (2nd Edition). Oxford University Press Victoria Australia. Consedine, R. & Consedine, J. (2005). Healing Our History; The Challenge of the Treaty of Waitangi. Auckland. Penguin Books, Corrigan, R. (1999). Statutory Registration of Social Workers; The Registration Project team. Social Work Review 12(1), 18-23, Dec 1999. Cram, F. (2001). Rangahau Maori: Tona tika, tona pono-The validity and integrity of Maori Research, In Tollich (2001) Research Ethics in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp.35-52) Auckland Pearson Education New Zealand Ltd. Cumming, A. (1985). How Nonviolence works. Jetset Print; Nonviolent Action Network Aotearoa. Curson, B. (1998). Draft Position Paper on the Registration of Social Work practitioners, Social Work Review Vol. X (4), pp 27-29.
96
M.S.H.
Davies, B., Flemmen, A. B., Gannon, S., Laws, C., & Watson, B., (2002). Working on the ground; a collective biography of the Feminine Subjectivities: Mapping the traces of Power and knowledge, in Social Semiotics, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2002. Carfax Publishing. Drewery, W. (2005). Why We Should Watch What We Say, Position calls, Everyday speech and the production of Relational Subjectivity. Paper for Theory and Psychology Sage Publications Vol. 15(3): 305-324. Du Plessi, R. & Alice, L. ((Ed) (1998). Feminist thought in Aotearoa New Zealand, Connections and Differences. Oxford University Press, Auckland. Durie, E. (1991). A Peaceful Solution. In Mana Tiriti-The Art of Protest and Partnership. Wellington: Haeata Collective, Project Waitangi, Wellington City Art Gallery. Daphne Brasell Associates Press, p. 64-69. Durie, M. (1995) .Maori and the State: Professionalism and Ethical implications for a Bicultural Public Service, article Public Sector Vol. 17 No. 1, March 1994, reproduced Te Kamako -Social Work Review, Jan 1995, Vol. VII No. 1.pg 2-5. Durie, M. (1998). Te Mana Te Kawanatanga; the Politics of Maori Self Determination. , Auckland Oxford University Press. During, S. (1985). Post modernism or Post colonial? New Zealand Landfall: 820, pg 366-380 Everiit, A. Hardiker, P., Littlewood, J. & Mullender, A. (1992). Epistemology and theory in social work. Series Editor Jo Campling. Applied research for better practice. (pp.16-34) London: The Macmillan Press. Figueira-McDonough J., (2007). The Welfare State and Social Work. USA, Sage Publishers. Fleras, A. & Spoonley, P. (1999). Recalling Aotearoa; Indigenous politics and Ethnic Relations in New Zealand. Oxford University Press, Australia. Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language . New York: Pantheon Books. Freeman, J., Epston, D., Lobovitz, D., (1997). Playful solutions to serious problems-Narrative Therapy, Children and their Family. London Norton Books. Gibbs A. (2005). The Paradigm, Contexts and Enduring Conflicts of Social Work Research, in L.M Stoneham (Ed.) Advances in Sociology research, Volume 2(pp. 135-164). USA: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Hartman A. (1992). In search of Subjugated Knowledge, Editorial, Social Work, Publication National Association of Social Workers, Inc, Pg. 483-484. Vol. 37, No. 6, Nov. Health Practitioners Competency Assurance Act (2003) .Wellington, New Zealand Government.
97
M.S.H.
Jackson, M. (2010). Canvassing the Treaty. Maori Television Documentary Saturday 6th Feb. Jenkins, A. (2009). Becoming Ethical. Russell House Publishing, Great Britain. Laenui, P. (1999). Process of Decolonization-Google Colonization and Decolonization, http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:KfWYgAOXr7Gj:www.opihi.com/sovereignty/colon isation.htm, retrieved 1/06/2006 McNabb, D. (1997). Registration for New Zealand Social Workers? Social Work Review IX(4), pp43-44. Maharey, S. (1998). Social Policy Social Work and Professionalism, Social Work Review X (4) pp25-26. Meinert, R., Pardeck, J.T., & Kreuger, L. (2000). The Dis juncture of science and social work. Social Work: Seeking relevancy in the twenty first century (pp.41-55). New York; Haworth Press. Ministry Social Development (2002). Social Workers Registration Bill Summary of Submissions 19th March Ministry Social Policy (2000). Registration of Social Workers Discussion Paper .July Minister of Social Welfare (1986). Puao-Te-Ata-Tu. Wellington: Government Printer. Mohan, B. (2005). Reinventing Social Work; Reflections on the Metaphysics of Social Practice. Edwin Mellen Press, Wales. Munford R., & Nash, M., (Eds.) (1994). Social Work in Action. Dunmore Press; Palmerston North. Murphy Stewart K. (2006). Bi cultural Practice theory applied to current initiatives of the Child, Youth Family to implement a differential response model in the management of reports and investigation into child abuse and neglect. Paper submitted for Masters Social Work, Massey. New Zealand Parliamentary Library (2001). Social Workers Registration Bill 2002, No 155-2. Bills Digest No 885. Published by Parliamentary Library Service Wellington N.Z. O Brien, M. (2009). Conference paper International Federation of Social Workers Auckland New Zealand, November. ODonoghue, K. (2001). Registration News Page, http://www.geocities.com/kieranodsw/registartion.html ODonoghue, K. (2003). Restorying Social Work Supervision. Palmerston North Dunmore Press. Orange, C. (1990). An Illustrated History of The Treaty of Waitangi. Wellington, Allen & Unwin.
98
Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)? Parliamentary Debates Hansard (2003). House of Representatives First session Forty Seventh Parliament 2002-2003 Parliament Tuesday 1st April 2003.
M.S.H.
Patton M.Q (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd Edition. USA; Sage Publication Inc. Payne, M. (1997). Modern Social Work Theory (2nd Edition). London MacMillan Press. Payne, M. (2006). What is Professional Social Work? (Revised 2nd Edition). Bristol United Kingdom, The Policy Press. Pinkola Estes, C. (1992). Women with Run with the Wolves. United Kingdom, Random House Press. Power, L. & Sharp, J. (2001). Feminist Geopolitics, Space and Politicy. Vol.5, No.3, 165-176, Carfex Publishers Pennsylvania State University. Randal, H., (1997). Competency practice and its Regulation-Debating the issues around Registration and Professionalism of Social Work in New Zealand. Article Aotearoa New Zealand Association Social Workers, Social Work Review, March-June. Rangihau, J. (1987). Beyond Crisis; address to the First New Zealand Conference on Social Work Education 28-30th August. Christchurch Reid, P, Gardiner, D., Smith, C., Smith, G., Reynolds, P. Smith Tuhiwai, L, Moewaka Barnes, H., (2007). Tikanga Rangahau, Kaupapa Maori methodologies in Research. Maori and Indigenous Analysis Limited, New Zealand. Roy, A. (2005). An ordinary persons guide to Empire. New Delhi. Penguin Books. Seed Pihama, J. (2005). Maori Ancestral Sayings: A Juridical Role? Paper from Te Matahauariki Institute Occasional paper Series, Number 10 2005. Published Hamilton, Te Matahauariki Institute, University of Waikato. Shannon, P. (1999). The Operation of Power in Aotearoa New Zealand, Discussion paper for Community Studies University of Otago. Shepard, M. (2004). Appraising and Using Social Research in the Human Services: An Introduction for Social Work and Health Professionals. Jessica Kingsley Publisher London. Smith, L.T. (2005). Decolonizing Methodologies research and Indigenous Peoples. University of Otago Press, Dunedin. Smithers, R. (2007). Biculturally Appropriate? Pakeha Social Workers Discuss Biculturalism. A Research report presented in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of Masters of Social Work Applied, Massey University, Palmerston North. Social Workers Registration Act (2003). Parliamentary Publications Wellington N.Z. 99
M.S.H.
Social Workers Registration Bill (2002) Governmental Bill. Parliamentary Library services. Parliament, Wellington New Zealand. Social Workers Registration Bill (2002). As reported from Social Services Committee Commentary. Parliamentary Library Services. Parliament Wellington New Zealand. Social Workers Registration Bill (2002). Explanation Notes General Policy Statement. Parliamentary Library services. Parliament Wellington New Zealand. Social Workers Registration Board (2007) Competency website Retrieved 3/3/09 Spender, D. (1980). Man Made Language., New York Routledge & Kegan Paul. The Ministry of Social Policy (2000). Registration of Social Workers, Discussion Paper, June. The Ministry of Social Policy (2001). Registration of Social Workers Consultation summary Report, May. Timeline http://www.nzhistory .net.nz/politics/treaty-timeline/treaty-events-1800-1849, (retrieved 25/11/09). Vaggioli, D F.(1896). History of New Zealand and its Inhabitants, English translation 2000 by J Crockett. University of Otago Press. Ventura, N. (2005). Personal communication. Southern Chair Social Action Council, California. Walker H. (1995). Where is Puao-te-ata-tu and the Department of Social Welfare? in Te Kamako-Social Work Review, January, Volume VII, Number 1. Pg 12-16. Walsh- Tapiata, W. (1997). Raukawa Social Services: Origins and future directions. Waiho ma to iwi e whakarite. Kei a ratou te kaha ki te hapai ake I a ratou ki te Ao Marama; Leave it to the iwi to decide for only they can take then selves into the future. Raukawa Social Services. Walsh -Tapiata, W. (2003). The Praxis of Research-What Can Social Services Learn from the Practice of Research in an Iwi setting? Social Work Review Te Komako, VI, 25-29. Walsh-Tapiata, W. (2009). Lecture notes Research Maori Perspectives, Applied Research paper 179.891. Massey University, Palmerston North. Wards, I. (1832). The Shadow of the land-a study of British Policy and racial conflicts in New Zealand 1832-1852. (retrieved www.teaohou.natlib.govt.nz 17.01.10) Webber Dreadon, E. (1999). He Taonga Mo Matou Tipuna: A gift handed down by our ancestors. Te Kamako III (December) Social Work Review Vol. XI No 4.ANZASW. Webber Dreadon, E. (2009). Law and lore: Te Tiriti Discussion, personal correspondence. 100
M.S.H.
Weber, R. P. (1985). Basic Content Analysis, Sage University Paper; Quantitative applications in the Social Sciences, Sage Publication USA White, M. & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends New York, Norton Wilks, T. Social Work and Narrative Ethics (2005). British Journal of Social Work35, 1249-1264 Oxford University Press. British Association of Social Workers. Wilson, M., & Yeatman A. Eds (1985). Justice & Identity, Antipodean Practices .Bridget William Publisher Wellington New Zealand. Winslade, J. (2002). Workshop-Face to face with Difference: Mediation and discursive Positioning; paper for International Association Counselors/ New Zealand Association Of Counselors Conference, Waipuna Hotel & Conference Centre, June. Auckland Recording Service Ltd. Winslade, J. & Monk, G., (2000).Narrative Mediation; A New Approach to Conflict Resolution. San Francisco Jossey Bass Publishers. Woller, P. (2005). Nga Hahi O Ngai Tamarawaho A History of Religion within the Hapu of Ngai Tamarawaho. A thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Masters in Arts in Maori Studies at Massey University; Palmerston North. Yensen, H., Hague K., Mc Creanor, T., Kelsey, J., Nairn, M., & Williams, D. (Eds.) (1989). Honoring the Treaty, An Introduction for Pakeha to the Treaty of Waitangi . Auckland. Penguin Books.
101

Lost Voice 5 AUGUST - PDF Submissions and The Disconnect Around The Registration of Social Workers Act 2003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lost Voice 5 AUGUST - PDF Submissions and The Disconnect Around The Registration of Social Workers Act 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the Social Work Registration Act (SWRA) 2003?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Table 4 (comparison and contrast of documents)..44

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

As a social worker and the researcher I have a curiosity about language

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Analytical framework and context

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

1994 in Munford et al. 1994 ).

Table 1. Reflection on themes in Social work discourses in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Debating Professionalism 1987-2002

Registration Era 2003 to present

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Stages of documentary research

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Research Table 3.2 Stages of documentary research

The research procedures

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Data identification and collection

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Research Table 3.4 Te Tiriti, Law and Lore

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Research Table 3.4 Te Tiriti, Law and Lore

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)?

Firstly the availability of documents and secondly, that not all

submissions were electronically available became challenges to the planned